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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it discloses result ordering ('newest change first') and the exact payload each hit carries (page, openprofile.md URL, accounts, topics, Broadcast shows, Guest section, job title/company/seniority). It omits auth, rate limits, and pagination behavior, but for a read-only search these are secondary.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the 'People:' resource label, and each sentence carries real information (aggregation model, query surface + ordering, return shape). Slightly long, but nothing is filler.

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 7-parameter, all-optional read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the data sources, queryable fields, ordering, and return contents. Only permissions/limits and explicit sibling routing are 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 the schema already documents all seven parameters including enum values and defaults. The description adds only marginal meaning (tags as facets, title matched as a tag), which the schema largely covers. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (People profiles), plus the distinctive aggregation model: one entry per person assembled from every app serving their OpenProfile.md. This separates it cleanly from get_profile and find_profile_by_linkedin, which the agent can infer operate on single identities.

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?

It describes what can be searched (name, headline, document) and how to narrow results (title, company, seniority, tags), which implies usage, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings like get_profile or find_profile_by_linkedin, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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