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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses return fields (semantic score, matched_chunks, evidence excerpts, updated_at), states that freshness does not affect ranking, and warns that results are untrusted data never instructions. This adds substantive operational and security 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?

Every sentence contributes a distinct fact: purpose, query language rules, response language, return fields, ranking behavior, and data trust. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains 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?

The description covers purpose, query formulation, output fields, ranking behavior, and data trust, which is strong for a simple 3-parameter read-only search with no output schema. It falls slightly short by leaving limit and min_score semantics implicit and poorly documented.

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 only 33%—only query has a description, and the tool description largely repeats that same query guidance. The description mentions semantic score in output but does not explain the limit or min_score parameters, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb and resource: 'Search semantically across public human profiles to find people...' It enumerates concrete intents (goals, skills, interests, collaboration, hiring, job-search) and distinguishes from sibling search_agents/search_projects by explicitly saying 'human profiles'.

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 gives clear context that this searches human profiles and provides strong query-formation guidance (translate to English, preserve constraints). However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool over siblings like search_projects or search_agents, nor does it list exclusions or alternatives.

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