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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the pagination contract (returns has_next_page + next_cursor, and how to pass next_cursor back) and the credit cost model (15/user, min 15, waived on bulk). These are operational details the agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines with no filler; the core purpose, pagination, and cost are each stated once. Only minor vagueness ('waived on bulk') keeps it from being maximally crisp.

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?

For a two-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers the operation, pagination, and cost. It lacks detail on query matching semantics and sibling routing, but is otherwise sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains `cursor` well via the pagination paragraph, but `query` is only glossed as 'keyword' with no format, matching, or scope details. Partial compensation for the coverage gap warrants a mid score.

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 and resource ('Search profiles ... return matching users ranked by relevance'), which is clearly distinguishable from profile-fetching siblings like user_info or user_batch_info_by_ids. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the general-purpose `search` sibling, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

The description implies the use case ('by keyword', returns ranked matching users), but gives no explicit when-to-use versus the general `search` tool or the ID-based user tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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