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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that it auto-detects and merges, but says nothing about cost, rate limits, how many downstream tools fire, what happens on multiple/ambiguous target types, or whether the fan-out is expensive or destructive.

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?

A single front-loaded line with no wasted words, which is structurally fine, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It reads like a title expansion, not a self-sufficient definition.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for an aggregating multi-tool sweep with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented input parameter, the description omits the scope, triggering conditions, and input type. Too little for the complexity of the tool.

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?

One parameter 'q' has a default of empty string and 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it says nothing about what q accepts (email, username, person name, domain?). With only one loosely defined param, the agent cannot know what input to supply.

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?

It names a specific action chain (auto-detect target type, run matching tools, merge entities) for a sweep tool, but 'human tools' is undefined jargon and the description never distinguishes itself from the sibling person_sweep or correlate_sweep. An agent can guess it is a people-focused fan-out, but the scope of 'human' is left to 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (person_sweep, correlate_sweep) that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to guess when a sweep is preferable to calling a single targeted tool like person_identity or username.

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