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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses return shape, result ordering and limits, empty results for short queries, a notice when a source fails, citeAs metadata, disputed-fact handling, and rate limiting. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction against 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and scope, and nearly every sentence carries operational value. It is slightly long and somewhat repetitive around result URLs and metadata, but it remains dense and useful rather than padded.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description fully compensates: it specifies the JSON response shape, maximum result counts, ordering, edge cases, attribution metadata, failure notices, and authentication tiers. An agent has everything it needs to invoke this correctly.

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 schema already documents the only parameter, query, at 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning: search by name or partial name, queries under 3 characters return empty, and results are limited per source. That extra guidance justifies a 4.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: searching Pansofica records of people/organizations and pxl8.io fighter records by name. It further distinguishes this from a list operation and connects results to the fetch tool, so an agent can tell it apart from the get_* and find_* 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 clearly frames this as a lookup, not a list, and explains the no-key rate-limited tier versus keyed partner access. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use find_fighter when...', so it falls short of full cross-tool routing guidance.

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