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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful runtime behavior: results are ranked, an needs_disambiguation flag fires for semantically ambiguous top hits, handles are returned for pass-back, and active_agency is always present so callers know which org was in effect. This materially shapes how an agent interprets and chains the response, and it does not contradict the readOnlyHint=true annotation.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when-to-use, return contract, and the active_agency guarantee. The core purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, with supporting behavioral detail following in logical order and no 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 read-only search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return contract an agent needs: ranked candidates, passable handles, the needs_disambiguation flag, and agency context. Limit behavior and the exact ambiguity threshold are left unspecified, a minor gap given limit is self-explanatory and the schema covers it numerically.

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 80% (4 of 5 params documented; only limit is bare), so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds only marginal parameter context — 'fuzzy' qualifies how query is matched, and the active_agency remark relates to scope/agency_id — so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fuzzy-search for a worker, teammate, or client') and enumerates the searchable keys (name, handle, email). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like search_tasks by naming the downstream consumers (create_task/handoff_task), so an agent cannot confuse it with task search or creation tools.

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?

'Use this to disambiguate a plain-language reference (e.g. 'Merrilee' or 'Avalore') before create_task/handoff_task' is explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete examples and named downstream tools. It does not state an explicit when-not-to-use condition (e.g., skip if you already hold a canonical handle/ID), which keeps this at a 4 rather than a 5.

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