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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is not burdened with safety claims. It adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are restricted to adults who chose Members or Public visibility and expose public fields only, with no login required. It doesn't say anything about result ordering, paging behavior beyond the limit parameter, or what happens when multiple filters are combined.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the search scope before the sibling routing, with zero filler. The telegraphic 'X: use Y' phrasing is efficient but slightly terse compared with prose, costing a little readability.

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 six-parameter filtered search with no output schema, the description covers scope, visibility constraints, and the two nearest sibling tools. Remaining gaps — traits syntax, limit default, and result shape — are partly covered by the schema itself, so nothing essential to calling it is missing.

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 67%, so the schema already documents text, place, and skills. The description maps its 'skills, role, place or words' phrasing onto those parameters but adds no syntax or matching semantics beyond the schema, and it never mentions limit or traits — traits is a non-obvious format documented only via a pointer to read_model.

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 ('Find members' Profile & CV pages') and enumerates the query dimensions (skills, role, place, words), which lets an agent tell it apart from find_people and read_profile 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Someone to talk to about a hobby: find_people' gives the when-not case, and 'Open one: read_profile' gives the natural follow-up. Both the alternative and the condition that selects it are named.

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