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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds valuable interpretive caveats beyond those: a move is simply two IAPD dates, never a reason, and not a prediction. The explicit exclusion of bulk re-registrations and departures, with the 99,737-row example, prevents serious misreading of the data scope.

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 tightly packed sentences front-load the result structure, then move to filters, exclusions, and semantic caveats. Every sentence adds information an agent needs, with no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 10-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, filter dimensions, default exclusion behavior, and domain interpretation. Remaining operational details such as cursor and limit handling are already present in the input schema.

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 only 60%, and the description compensates by explaining the meaning of include_bulk and include_departures and by mapping filterable entities to move types and date windows. It doesn't re-explain limit/cursor, but those are already covered by 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 opening sentence names a concrete action and resource: searching for advisors who left one firm and registered at another, and enumerates the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes this tool from generic search_* siblings by specifying move types, exclusions, and the registration-date basis.

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?

The description clearly states the filter dimensions and explains when to flip include_bulk and include_departures, so an agent knows how to include or exclude edge cases. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide a when-to-use-versus-other-tools rule, so it stops short of a 5.

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