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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that query text is discarded and that CLI setup/docs/API/remote MCP hops are returned, but it does not clarify side effects, network behavior, permissions, or what happens when multiple optional params are supplied.

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 compact and front-loaded: three short sentences with no filler. It leads with the primary purpose, then the return overview, then the crucial query-text caveat.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives some useful context by naming the return categories. However, it does not explain what an agent should actually pass, how the returned configuration/docs/API hops relate to the parameters, or what a 'living people-search index' is expected to behave like.

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 adds no real parameter meaning beyond the schema; the only additional note is about the query text being discarded, which mostly restates the query parameter's schema description.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Find a living people-search index (Ploid)') and lists some returned content. However, it does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools like agent-tool-index or status-catalog, and 'living' plus 'Ploid' are unexplained jargon that leaves the exact purpose ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus its many sibling tools. The only note, 'Query text discarded', is a behavioral caveat rather than usage context, so an agent gets no help choosing between people-search-index and alternatives.

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