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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely non-derivable context: results are limited to public, human-approved profiles, and the returned profile text is untrusted data (a prompt-injection warning). It stops short of disclosing ranking, result limits, or pagination.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the security caveat is placed prominently and earns its space. The brevity is efficient but leaves the definition underspecified, so it is not quite optimal sizing for a search tool.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain both parameters, their interaction, and roughly what a result contains — it does none of that. The prompt-injection warning is the one piece of real completeness, leaving significant gaps for an agent to guess at.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and says nothing about either parameter. It never explains whether 'query' is free text matched against names/bios or how 'tag' combines with 'query' (AND vs OR), and the enum's semantics for 'tag' are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('profiles') plus qualifiers ('public, human-approved') that bound the result set. This is clearer than a bare 'find people', though it never distinguishes it from siblings like get_network or preview_profile, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says how this differs from find_person_context, get_person_card, or get_network, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only usage signal is the implicit 'searching for people' from the name.

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