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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not. It mentions 'Query text discarded' and that parameters are 'discarded after the call' in the schema, but the description itself is opaque about side effects, data access, or what the tool actually does. The description is misleading as it suggests returning documentation but fails to explain how the tool behaves.

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 short and front-loaded with the main statement, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It contains vague phrases like 'living people-search index' and 'remote MCP hops' that add no clarity. While every word is sparse, it does not earn its place because it fails to inform.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information about return values, side effects, or how the tool is expected to be used. An agent would not be able to call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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?

The description does not add any meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. Although schema coverage is high (100%), the description gives no insight into how these parameters are used collectively or what the tool does with them. It only repeats that some are 'discarded', which is unhelpful. The description fails to compensate for the tool's unclear purpose.

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 does not clearly state what the tool does. It mentions 'Find a living people-search index (Ploid)' but this is extremely vague and does not convey a specific verb-resource relationship. The additional phrases 'Returns CLI setup, docs, API, and remote MCP hops' are confusing and do not clarify the tool's purpose. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'agent-tool-index' or 'lib-docs-hint'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context for selection, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. An agent would have no idea why to invoke this tool over others.

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