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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context: the operation returns information and notably 'Query text discarded', signaling that search text is ignored. But it does not state whether any inputs have side effects, whether credentials are needed, or describe the output shape/provenance, so disclosure is partial.

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 short sentences with no filler and the primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It earns conciseness points, though the final sentence about query text is an awkward appendage and could have been folded into the behavior statement.

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?

Despite only 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description leaves significant ambiguity: what 'living people-search index' means, which parameters are meaningful (many look unrelated), what the returned CLI setup/docs/API/hops look like, and why query text is discarded. The tool is simple in type but the definition does not make it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter and the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond reasserting that query text is discarded; it does not explain the relationship between the 9 unrelated optional parameters and the returned index, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 concrete resource ('living people-search index (Ploid)') and states what the tool returns ('CLI setup, docs, API, and remote MCP hops'), so an agent can tell roughly what it does. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling index/catalog tools such as agent-tool-index or lib-docs-hint, and 'living'/'Ploid' are unexplained.

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 phrasing 'Find a living people-search index' implies the intended use, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the right tool for retrieving Ploid setup/docs and not another catalog or shape-check sibling.

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