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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: the result fields, the public-only scope, and the write path via pro_message(to: @handle). No auth or rate-limit detail, but the bar is lower given annotations.

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?

A single dense but front-loaded sentence that leads with the scope distinction, then results, then the write path. No filler, though the run of em-dash clauses is slightly heavy for two parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values could be omitted and the safety profile is annotation-covered; the description still supplies the key scope constraint and the message handoff. The only real gap is the undocumented limit parameter for what is otherwise a simple two-parameter 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that 'text' accepts role, skills, and place free text, which is real added value, but the 'limit' parameter (1–20) and the 120-char max on text are never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 and resource (search public professional profiles) and immediately disambiguates scope with 'adults who turned their professional profile on and public'. The closing exclusion of private profiles and friends further separates it from sibling tools like search_profiles and find_people.

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 concrete context for use — free-text lookup by role, skills, or place — and a clear negative boundary (never searches private profiles or friends). It also routes the follow-up action to pro_message. It stops short of naming the sibling search tool an agent should use for non-professional people.

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