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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, it discloses the auth requirement, the 30-result cap, the exclusion of phone numbers and cloud users, and that candidates are only currently selectable because the server re-validates actual assignment. It does not describe rate limits or the full returned shape beyond the id.

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 dense but front-loaded: it leads with login and search scope, then organizationId behavior, downstream use, exclusions, and server revalidation. Every clause adds operational meaning, with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter, read-only candidate-search tool with no output schema, it covers the important context: auth, result cap, scope switching, excluded data, downstream use, and server-side revalidation. The remaining gap is that the exact result fields and optional-parameter defaults are not spelled out.

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 burden, and it explains both parameters functionally: q is a nickname search, and organizationId changes selection to the alliance scope when it is an alliance organization id. It does not state default behavior when q or organizationId is omitted.

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 operation: search by nickname for people who can be assigned a collaboration task, limited to recent DM contacts and visible same-organization members. It names the downstream tool create_direct_collaboration_task and defines the candidate pool, which distinguishes it from generic people-search siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage context: login is required, q searches by nickname, organizationId switches to alliance-reachable scope, and results are capped at 30. It also states that the returned ids are meant for create_direct_collaboration_task. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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