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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds behavior they cannot: the default page size of 20, the distinction between memberCount (total matches) and returnedCount (this page), the response-size budget that can shorten a page, and the requirement to reuse the same query when paging. With no output schema, this is exactly the disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the lookup purpose, then return shape, then pagination, then the ambiguity warning. Every sentence carries weight, with only minor overlap against the schema's own cursor/limit text.

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 zero-required-param, read-only paginated search with no output schema, the description covers defaults, paging, returned fields (role, profile policy, specialist boundaries), and multi-match ambiguity. It omits any note on authorization requirements or what 'managed-program/VFO' means, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 limit, query, and cursor are already fully documented. The description restates the default-20 and same-query-for-cursor semantics but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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/list) and resource (authorized managed-program or VFO members) plus the lookup keys (name, email, exact ID). The 'authorized managed-program or VFO' scope distinguishes it from the many document/thread/entity siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly to route between near-neighbors.

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?

Gives clear context: prefer search when a person is named, never guess between multiple matches, and only follow nextCursor when more results are needed. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, but the conditions for use are unambiguous.

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