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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: the exact filtering predicate, the cardinality of the subset, and the character of returned records (verified contacts, FAQ, social media). It omits any note on permissions or result ordering, but for a read-only search this is substantial disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the scoping constraint in the first clause, followed by the predicate and the noise-minimization rationale. The parenthetical counts are useful evidence rather than filler, though the sentence is dense and could be split for scanability.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description needs to explain the return surface — and it does, naming verified contacts, FAQ data, and social links. It stops short of describing result ordering or how limit/offset interact, leaving a minor gap for a paginated search.

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 five parameters including defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail (it never mentions that queries must be French, which only appears in the schema), so the baseline 3 applies.

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) plus a precisely bounded resource subset ('ONLY enriched/RUP associations'), and defines that subset operationally via the is_enriched_v3/RUP predicate. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the broad search_associations tool by the scale contrast (837+1,966 vs 2.03M+).

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?

Gives a clear selection condition ('Recommended for agent grounding when noise should be minimized') and implicitly the opposite case via the 2.03M+ comparison. It does not name the standard-search sibling explicitly nor state when this tool would be the wrong choice, so it falls just short of explicit routing.

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