Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'search' adds nothing new on safety. The description does not mention pagination, result caps, whether an empty query returns everything, or what happens when stage/list_id conflict with query, so the behavioral picture stays thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the scope qualifier placed early. It is well-structured but arguably under-sized for a tool with three undocumented filters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and three filters, the description needed to define stage and list_id and describe result behavior. It covers only the query field, leaving the agent unable to confidently use two of three parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and three parameters exist. The description partially explains query (name, company, email) but says nothing about stage or list_id, so two of three filters remain semantically opaque; it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (people/prospects) plus the workspace scope and the searchable fields (name, company, email). No sibling is a competing "search" tool, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The agent gets no hint about when to prefer this over research_prospects, enrich_prospects, or get_prospect_research, all of which operate on the same prospect population.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.