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

Annotations already cover the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low. The description usefully discloses that results are pre-filtered to 'verified, available' mentors, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior.

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, no filler: the core purpose and its qualifier come first, the return shape second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, and the tool is a simple two-parameter read so little else is needed. Minor gaps remain around default result count and ordering.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the default of 10 and examples like 'reservoir engineering'. The description only paraphrases the expertise filter and omits 'limit' entirely, adding nothing beyond the schema — the 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('verified, available mentors on mentor.energy') and even enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinct from the course/blog/lesson siblings by domain, but it never addresses the generic 'search' sibling, which is the one plausible overlap.

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?

'Optionally by area of expertise' implies the one filtering scenario, so usage is inferable. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus 'search', no when-not guidance, and no statement about result breadth or defaults.

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