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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: results are sorted by completeness, pagination uses scroll_token, and each returned record costs 1 credit. The credit-cost disclosure in particular is real value beyond the annotations. It stops at 4 because it does not mention rate limits or result-size constraints.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then return/pagination behavior, then cost and endpoint. No filler; every sentence carries distinct 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 an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (matching profiles sorted by completeness), pagination, and cost, which is close to what an agent needs. The absence of output schema is partially compensated, though nothing is said about the profile fields returned.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the query/sql duality and scroll_token pagination but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 and resource ('Search the full PDL Person Dataset') and clarifies the two supported input modes, so the agent knows this is a bulk/query search rather than enrichment. It does not name the sibling tools (pdl_person_enrich, pdl_person_identify) to explicitly route between them, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 description implies usage context (querying the person dataset with ES or SQL) but never states when to choose this over pdl_person_enrich or pdl_person_identify, nor when to prefer the ES mode over SQL. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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