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

Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the description's job is to add context beyond that — and it does: BYOK requirement, at-least-one-filter constraint, return fields, and opaque cursor pagination. It doesn't disclose rate limits or result caps, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scope-distinction, then filters, outputs, constraints, and a worked example. Slightly dense with the enum and ISO-code details that already live in the schema, but no wasted sentences.

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?

Complete for a 10-param search tool with no output schema: it covers the BYOK auth requirement, the mandatory-filter constraint, pagination via cursor, and the shape of returned records. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the filter categories and enumerates seniority values and the country-code convention, but the schema already documents these plus page_size, cursor, and stealth_founder. Marginal added value over the structured data.

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 (search) and resource (Revternal's people-intelligence index), and explicitly distinguishes scope from the sibling developer tools ('not just developers'). An agent can route between this and revternal_search_developers without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context ('Use for recruiting, GTM prospecting, and lead research when you have criteria rather than a specific profile'), which implicitly contrasts with enrichment tools like revternal_enrich_person. It does not name those alternatives explicitly, so it falls short of a full when-not/alternative statement.

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