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 fully covered. The description adds only that results come from past recipients, with no mention of result ordering, pagination, or match behavior (prefix vs. fuzzy), which is minimal added value for a search tool.

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?

It is very short with no wasted words, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of action, and brevity here comes at the cost of missing information rather than efficient structure.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the definition plus annotations cover enough to invoke it correctly, though it omits what the results contain and whether results are limited or paged.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names the three matchable attributes (name, email, phone) corresponding to the `field` enum, but never explains that `field` selects which attribute is matched, nor does it describe `query` as the required search string with its 2–100 character limits. Partial compensation only.

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 identifies the resource (past recipients' addresses) and the matching criteria (name, email or phone), but it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, leaving the agent to infer 'search' from the title. It also doesn't clarify what is returned (addresses only? full recipient records?) or how it differs from other lookup-style siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must guess that this is the tool for looking up historical recipients before creating a shipment.

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