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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: scope is limited to approved public profiles, the call is data-only and returns a default of 20, no warm-up probe call is needed, and profile text should be treated as data rather than instructions (prompt-injection warning). It does not discuss rate limits or truncation behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with the core purpose first and constraints after; little waste. The trailing recommendation URL is the weakest sentence but still serves routing, so the size is appropriate for a multi-facet 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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers scope, default sizing, anti-probe behavior, and facet vocabulary, leaving only minor gaps such as the lack of pagination/offset guidance given the limit ceiling of 50.

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 coverage is 60%: limit, query, and company carry descriptions, while tags and preferPhotos do not. The description compensates by naming the searchable facets (founder, role, skill) that map onto query/tags, and by clarifying that an exact company filter is 'never replaced by photo-based preferences,' which implicitly explains the preferPhotos interaction.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Data-only search of approved public profiles') and states what it searches by (founder, role, skill, exact company) plus the default result count. It actively distinguishes itself from the sibling search_guide by routing visual/browsing needs there, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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 an explicit alternative ('For visual recommendations, request a people or networking section in search_guide'), an explicit anti-pattern ('Do not make a small preview or probe call first'), and a further routing hint (afrotech.guide/connect when browsing helps). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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