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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that results are pageable and sortable and includes a version note about archive_code, which is useful, but it does not disclose return format details or other behavioral nuances beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is appropriately concise: two sentences plus a version note, with the main purpose stated up front. It contains no fluff or redundant elaboration beyond the slight restatement of the title, which is harmless.

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?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It vaguely promises 'found persons and records' but doesn't explain the result structure, pagination semantics, or the meaning of sort/start/number_show. It also fails to distinguish the tool from search_transcriptions, leaving a significant gap for an agent selecting among sibling tools.

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 0%, and the description only lists some filter dimensions (archive, source type, event place, birth place, relation type, country) without explaining parameters like start, number_show, sort, not_archive, or lang. The mention of pageable/sortable is helpful but lacks specifics about offsets or sort enum values, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the tool searches genealogical records and returns found persons and records, listing supported filter dimensions. It uses a specific verb+resource and provides more detail than just the title, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_transcriptions, so it lacks direct differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_transcriptions or other search tools. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context clues beyond the general 'Searches the genealogical dataset' phrase, leaving the agent to guess when this is the right choice.

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