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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive). It discloses return scope (only public fields, not logged), consent and auth requirements, rate-limiting, and the notable side effect that opening a result via read_profile is visible to the owner.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return/visibility scope, prerequisites, and the follow-up action. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 search tool with an output schema, the description still covers the essential non-schema facts: result field scope, consent/auth preconditions, rate-limiting, and the read_profile hand-off. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The description enumerates the searchable facets (skills, role, place, free text, collaboration traits) that map to the schema properties, and the schema covers 67% of params with its own descriptions. It adds little beyond the schema and says nothing about 'limit' or matching semantics, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) and resource (Hunchful members' Profile & CV pages) and scopes it precisely to adults who chose Members or Public. It separates itself from read_profile (the follow-up action) but does not distinguish itself from other search-like siblings such as find_people, find_matches, or list_members.

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 clear context: search by skills/role/place/free text/traits, then 'Open one with read_profile.' Also lists prerequisites (signed-in adult, relay 'search' consent). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus the other people-finding siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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