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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It discloses that results are newest-change-first and that each answer includes specific fields (page, URL, accounts, topics, Broadcast shows, Guest section). However, it omits details on result limits, pagination, whether search is case-insensitive, and whether it's read-only. Partial behavioral context is given, but significant gaps remain.

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 sentences are dense and front-loaded, with the core resource definition first and result details second. No filler text. However, the second sentence is a long list of fields that could be slightly more structured, but it remains useful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return values; it does this partially by listing fields. However, for a search tool with no annotations, it lacks important context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, empty-result behavior, and how 'assembled from every app' affects duplicate handling. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'q' can match against anything in the document (not just name and headline), which extends the schema's scope. It also mentions 'newest change first', aligning with the 'since' parameter, though it doesn't explicitly tie the two.

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 clearly states it returns one entry per person assembled from apps serving OpenProfile.md, with an explicit example domain (podcasters from p0dcasters). It distinguishes the resource from search_items and recent_items, but doesn't name a sibling alternative for when other search tools would be better.

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?

Implicit usage is deducible: search by name/headline/document, newest first. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_items or other search tools, and no when-not to use guidance. An agent must infer this from the resource name.

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