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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says 'Query text discarded' on a few parameters, implying side effects or lack thereof, but it is inconsistent: some parameters say 'discarded' (ref, city, feed, json, query) while others do not (url, host, path, zone). This is contradictory and opaque. It does not state whether the tool performs network I/O, has side effects, or what 'Find' results mean.

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 fairly short, but it is not well-structured. It front-loads the purpose ('Find a living people-search index'), but then includes a vague list of outputs ('CLI setup, docs, API, and remote MCP hops') that is not helpful. The phrase 'Query text discarded' is repeated in the parameter descriptions, which is redundant. Overall, it is concise but not effective.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain how the tool works, what inputs are required (though none are mandatory), what the return value looks like, or how parameters like 'city' or 'feed' relate to the purpose. An agent cannot safely call this tool without risking unintended behavior.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description does not add meaning beyond the parameter descriptions. It only lists the parameters in the main description, but that is redundant. The description hints at 'discarded' for some parameters, but it does not explain how each parameter is used or what the expected input format is beyond the schema's basic types. The tool has 9 parameters and zero required, so more clarity would be needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('living people-search index (Ploid)'), but the purpose is obscured by the odd list of behaviors: 'Returns CLI setup, docs, API, and remote MCP hops.' This does not clearly explain what the tool actually does or what the input parameters are for. It is not a tautology, but it is confusing and fails to distinguish from similar index tools like 'agent-tool-index'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions for use, nor does it name any sibling tools. The 'Query text discarded' hint suggests it might be a health check, but that is not explicit. With 29 siblings, this lack of routing information leaves an agent guessing.

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