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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive, so the description is free to add operational context instead. It does: 'Free' discloses cost, and 'Needs the read scope' discloses the auth prerequisite — both beyond annotations. No return-shape detail, which is fine given an output schema exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then cost, then routing advice. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

Covers purpose, cost model, ordering relative to resolution, and auth scope for a two-parameter read tool with an output schema. Only the result-volume controls (limit range/default) are left entirely to the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. 'By name or handle' in the description merely restates what the q parameter description already says; nothing is added about limit or the default of 12.

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 ('find people, accounts and organizations the identity graph already knows') and narrows scope with 'by name or handle, with their labels'. An agent can distinguish it from identity_resolve and identity_expand without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes ordering against a named sibling: 'Use it before identity_resolve' with a cost rationale. It gives no when-not-to-use case or mention of other search-like siblings (concept_search, find_evidence), but the primary routing decision is covered.

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