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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and side-effect behavior need no restating. The description adds the useful note that results come from an external profile directory (open-world), but says nothing about result ordering, matching semantics (substring vs exact), or truncation beyond what the schema's limit field implies.

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 no filler; the what-it-searches clause comes first and the routing preference second. Nothing is wasted.

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 description plus annotations plus full schema coverage give an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. It would be stronger if it hinted at the shape of returned profiles (since there is no output schema), but the gap is minor.

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% – both q ("Handle, pump username, or wallet substring") and limit ("Max results (default 20)") are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes "handle or wallet" and even omits the pump-username form of q, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. 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 ("Search") and resource ("CREW KOL / Pump profile directory") plus the lookup keys (handle or wallet), which separates it from the sibling crew_list_kols. It does not explicitly differentiate from crew_list_kols or crew_discover, so it stops short of a 5.

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 an explicit preference: manual selection from this directory is preferred and Autohire is only a fallback/convenience. That is real routing guidance, but it never says when to prefer the sibling crew_list_kols or crew_discover over this search, so it falls short of naming all alternatives.

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