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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The only added behavioral note is 'Pagination is zero-based', which largely duplicates the page parameter's schema description, and nothing is said about what happens with zero filters or how results are ordered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the filterable fields and followed by the pagination caveat. No filler, though the pagination sentence repeats structured data.

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-optional-parameter search with no output schema and no annotation detail beyond readOnlyHint, the description omits the result shape, default ordering, and the limit/paging relationship. Adequate to call it, but not sufficient to predict its behavior.

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?

Coverage is only 33%, so the description has to carry weight: it correctly signals exact-match semantics for email, firstName, lastName and status, which is real value beyond the bare schema. However limit is never mentioned and the exactness claim for a status enum is ambiguous, leaving the compensation incomplete.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (resources) plus the exact fields it filters on, which clearly separates it from list_resources and get_resource by implication. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

The phrase 'search ... by exact email, first name, last name or status' implies when to reach for this over a plain list, and the word 'exact' hints that partial matches won't work. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative.

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