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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful disclosure: results are illustrative ('example companies', 'sample offerings', 'first names' only), not real member records, which prevents the agent from treating the output as an authoritative match list.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return content before the usage note. Dense but every clause carries information; 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does: companies, roles, industries, sample offerings, first names. Combined with annotations and a fully documented 2-param schema, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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 100% with per-field descriptions, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description reinforces that 'looking_for' is the prospect's stated answer and that results are surfaced where introductions can be made, but says nothing about how location shapes results — baseline 3 applies.

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 (return/preview) and a concrete payload: example companies, roles, industries, sample offerings and first names. It is clearly distinguished from search_members or browse_directory by being a preview tied to a prospect's stated intent, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 explicit timing: 'while a new member is joining, right after they say what they are looking for.' That is strong when-to-use context. It stops short of any when-not clause or named alternative, leaving the boundary with directory/search tools to inference.

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