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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the query text is discarded, that it follows a 302 redirect with specific UTM parameters, and that it returns CLI setup, docs, API, and remote MCP hops. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, rate limits, or what 'living' means operationally. It adds some behavioral context but not rich detail.

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, three sentences, with the core action and key behavioral notes front-loaded. It mentions the hop, return contents, and query discard without waste. Slightly more detail on parameter roles could help, but it's 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a high-level summary of returns but doesn't explain how the parameters are used or what the output structure looks like. Since all params are optional and discarded, the tool may be a meta-index, but the description doesn't fully clarify invocation context. It's adequate but leaves gaps.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds that 'Query text discarded' and 'ref discarded after shape check', but doesn't explain how parameters like url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone relate to the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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)'), and mentions following a hop. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the Ploid index and the start_here.hop, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with a sibling tool. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to know what it does.

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 implies usage by describing the hop to follow and what it returns, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Query text discarded' and lists outputs, giving some context, but no exclusions or alternative routing. This is adequate but not explicit.

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