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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results come from public search only, it does not sign in or read profile pages, and it explains the 'confirmed' vs 'former' person semantics. It stops short of describing rate limits or result shape specifics.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then inputs, then return semantics and prerequisite. The role/seniority lists are dense but earn their space as the only source of allowed values. The confirmed/former paragraph is slightly wordy but conveys non-obvious semantics.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the description still explains the meaningful return flags (confirmation/former) plus the auth prerequisite. For a 4-param read-only lookup this is complete enough to call 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% and no enums are defined in the schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the valid role and seniority values, which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about the `limit` parameter (default 8) or the behavior of a null role/seniority, leaving one of four params unexplained.

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+resource ('Find the people at a company') and clarifies the two filtering axes (what they do, seniority). An agent can tell it surfaces named people, but the description never differentiates it from close siblings like findContacts or findLeads, so routing depends on inference.

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?

It gives the input shape ('give it a company and optionally a role and a seniority') and a prerequisite ('Needs a free SnoopScan key'), which is useful. But there is no when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, and the closest siblings (findContacts, findLeads) are never mentioned, leaving selection ambiguous.

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