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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it returns matching tags with slugs and returns no matches when nothing hits, triggering the search-all fallback. It doesn't mention pagination or the limit default, but with annotations carrying the safety context this is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the slug-resolution use case, then the fallback. Mild waste from restating the requirement twice ('searchText input (required)' and 'REQUIRED arguments: searchText'), which the schema already enforces, but no sentence obscures the key routing information.

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, and the description compensates by stating the return shape (matching focus tags with their slugs). The limit parameter's effect on result count is left to the schema, which documents it, so an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'focus tag / specialization name' phrasing and the 1–15 limit range. The description repeats that searchText is required and gives examples, which is redundant with the schema rather than additive, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource (search focus tags), defines what a focus tag is with concrete examples, and states what the caller gets back (slugs). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search-* tools, which search companies, jobs, locations, and so on.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('resolve a specialization into the focusTagSlugs the benchmark tools accept') and what to do when it fails ('fall back to search-all, which searches every entity type and applies a fuzzy fallback'). Both the primary case and the fallback route are named.

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