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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds the meaningful disclosure that results are summary-level and full details plus portfolio require spur_get_owner. It does not discuss result caps, ranking of matches, or empty-result behavior, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns for a search endpoint.

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, zero filler, with the search capability front-loaded and the sibling routing second. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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 5-parameter, fully-described search tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, searchable dimensions, and escalation to the detail tool. Only pagination/result-ordering expectations are left implicit, a minor gap given the schema already documents limit and offset.

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%, including the query field's match targets and the limit/offset/filter semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the query matchable fields but adds nothing about limit, offset, has_phone, or enrichment_status, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Find) and resource (property owners) plus the account scope ('in the user's Spur account') and enumerates the searchable fields (name, phone, email, mailing address). It also distinguishes itself from spur_get_owner, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either 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 routes the agent to spur_get_owner 'for full details and portfolio', which establishes this tool as the lightweight lookup and that one as the detail fetch. It does not say when filtering (has_phone, enrichment_status) is preferable to text query, so usage context is clear but not exhaustive.

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