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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only says 'Query text discarded' and lists returned content. It does not explain that the schema parameters appear to be shape checks or discarded inputs, nor does it disclose side effects, output shape, or response behavior.

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 three terse sentences with no filler, front-loading the purpose, then the returned content, then the query caveat. 'Living' and 'Ploid' are slightly unexplained, but the size and ordering are efficient.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations, this description is not complete enough for an agent to know what arguments to pass or what the returned docs/API/hops actually look like. The query-discarded note helps, but the overall invocation pattern is unclear.

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 input schema already documents all nine parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much per-parameter detail. The tool-level description adds little beyond the query-discarded caveat already present in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb and object: 'Find a living people-search index (Ploid).' It lists the returns ('CLI setup, docs, API, and remote MCP hops'), which gives the agent a clear sense of what the tool provides. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling index/lookup tools, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agent-tool-index or lib-docs-hint. The 'Query text discarded' caveat warns about an input, but it does not state invocation context, preconditions, or when not to use the tool.

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