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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that a query is required and that it's not list-all, which prevents misuse. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects it has, or what the return format is. It adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently includes the query requirement, the list-all distinction, and the connection workflow without any wasted words. Excellent structure for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and the connection flow. However, it leaves the token parameter unexplained and doesn't clarify the return format or the meaning of 'open rail or opt-in roster', which could be important for correct invocation. There are gaps that an agent might need filled.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only repeats that a query is required, which is already in the schema's required list. It doesn't explain the limit parameter (beyond schema defaults) or the token parameter at all, providing no additional semantic value for these parameters.

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 clearly states the tool searches for handles with an open rail or opt-in roster, and explicitly distinguishes it from list-all. It uses a specific verb and resource, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings like list_contacts or list_rooms.

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 provides a negative guideline ('This is not list-all') and a workflow hint ('To connect: request_connect, then wait for accept'), which implies when to use search before connecting. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like list_contacts or describe when listing might be preferred over searching.

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