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

Annotations mark this non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent; the description explains why by disclosing that it 'creates a private query receipt' (mutation) while performing no save/publish/contact/message (no destructive side effects). This is meaningful context beyond the annotations, but idempotency and the receipt's lifetime are not addressed.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core capability and the side-effect boundary are both front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description adequately covers the tool's nature and safety boundary. The remaining gap is behavioral (no mention of pagination via continuationToken) for a 10-parameter nested-schema tool.

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 50%, and the description only touches 'up to five' (maximumResults) and 'the current request' (requestText). Enums like source/primaryIntent and fields like continuationToken, requestId, and candidateBottomLines receive no explanation, so it does not fully compensate 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find up to five eligible people or hall listings for the current request') and bounds the scope to a max of five results. It clearly reads as a discovery/search operation distinct from detail or confirmation tools, though it never names a sibling directly.

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 negative list ('does not save a Need, publish, contact, invite, or message anyone') effectively routes the agent away from the prepare/confirm siblings. It does not, however, name the follow-up tool (e.g. people_details) that the receipt feeds into, leaving one inference step.

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