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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful workflow context by positioning this as the initial name-to-slug resolver, but does not disclose matching behavior, result ordering, or rate/limit behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Two short sentences with zero wasted language, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the usage instruction.

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 simple search tool with rich annotations, a fully described input schema, and an output schema, the description covers purpose and entry-point usage well. It does not need to explain return values, but it could have mentioned that results are capped or clarify matching behavior; still, it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the query, type, and limit parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and names the concrete record types ('models, creatives, fashion houses and agencies') plus the scope ('Tectova's runway record'). It is clear what the tool does, but unlike the strongest examples it does not explicitly name a sibling tool to contrast with, relying on 'Use this first' to imply the discovery role.

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 clear usage context: use this first to resolve a name to a slug, which tells the agent this is the entry point before using record-specific tools. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives explicitly, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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