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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the returned fields (id, type, name, email), the per_page cap with a default of 10, and the underlying GET /search endpoint. It stops short of describing match semantics (prefix vs substring).

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 front-loaded sentences with essentially no waste; the searchable fields and return shape come first. The trailing 'GET /search' is minor implementation trivia but harmless.

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 three-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what it searches, which entity types, what comes back, the result cap, and what to do with the returned id. Nothing needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description restates the entity enum values and the per_page default without adding format or matching detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline case.

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 by name/email text') and enumerates the exact record types it operates on, plus what it returns. It is clearly a text-search tool rather than a list tool, though it does not name or rule out the sibling freshsales_lookup, so full sibling differentiation isn't achieved.

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 gives one useful routing instruction — 'Use the id with the get tools' — and constrains scope to 'one record type'. But it never says when to prefer this over freshsales_lookup or the freshsales_list_* tools, which an agent choosing among 30 siblings would need.

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