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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds meaningful scope context beyond that — it only uses stated role/company/bio/tag data and explicitly forbids inferring sensitive traits. That is a real behavioral constraint, though it says nothing about result volume, ordering guarantees, or empty-result behavior.

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 sentences, no filler, with the ranking behavior and the privacy constraint both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

A full output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The privacy/scope limit is well covered, but an agent is left guessing on pagination/limit semantics and on how ties or sparse profiles are handled.

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 only 14% (just 'query'), so six of seven parameters are undocumented structurally. The description partially compensates by mapping roles/companies/tags to 'stated context' and goals to the ranking objective, but limit and preferPhotos remain unexplained, so the gap is only half closed.

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 (Rank) plus a clearly bounded resource (approved public attendee profiles) and the criterion (a professional goal). It implicitly separates itself from search_people by being a ranking tool, but never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 phrase 'against a professional goal' implies when the tool is appropriate (goal-driven ranking rather than raw lookup), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as search_people for unfiltered retrieval.

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