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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does by stating 'Only public profiles are searched' and noting that sector names in queries also match investors listing that sector. This adds useful behavioral nuance without contradicting the annotations. No contradiction detected.

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?

The description is a single, tightly written paragraph. It front-loads the primary purpose, then gives narrowing guidance and an alternative tool reference. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is searched, what is excluded (non-public profiles), how to narrow results, and when to use an alternative. It does not need to explain return format since no output schema exists, and the pagination parameters are already in the schema. The description is complete for an agent to invoke it 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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining how sector and check_size work as filters (narrowing hits) and by referencing list_sectors and list_check_sizes for the full valid sets. This goes beyond a bare schema description, so a 4 is warranted.

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?

The description clearly states the tool searches Signed's public angel investor directory by keyword, and specifies the fields matched (name, login, bio, investment description, sector names/slugs). It also differentiates from the sibling list_investors by explicitly noting that list_investors is for browsing without a keyword, so an agent can immediately distinguish the two.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_investors ('use list_investors to browse a facet without a keyword') and how to narrow results ('Add sector or check_size to narrow the hits'). It also points to list_sectors and list_check_sizes for valid values, giving the agent a clear path to construct a correct query.

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