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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description usefully adds quota semantics that annotations cannot express: a call counts as one search, but a page returning nobody new is not charged. It does not disclose what happens on exhaustion (empty list vs. error) or any rate limits, leaving the paging contract partly open.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core paging purpose, with no filler. The billing note is placed last where it reads as a secondary clarification rather than the headline.

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 three-parameter read-only paging tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers paging, dedupe, and quota cost. The remaining gap — how an agent knows it has reached the end of results — is minor but real.

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 count, query, and shown including examples. The description adds only light reinforcement — that query must be identical and shown must contain what was already received — which supports the dedupe purpose but adds no format detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource and operation: the next page of people for a search already run, with deduplication of results already received. It implies but never names firsay_search, so an agent must infer the pairing rather than being routed to it explicitly.

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 gives clear preconditions for use — a search must already have run, and the same query plus received handles must be passed back in. It does not name the sibling tool to call first or say when to stop paging, which keeps it short of a full when/when-not statement.

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