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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the required permission scope (`individuals.read`), a genuinely additive behavioral fact not present in annotations; it stops short of noting pagination behavior or empty-result handling, which the schema happens to cover.

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 short sentences, no filler: the capability statement comes first and the prerequisite trails it. Every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description could say what a result record contains or that results are paged, but it does not — pagination semantics live entirely in the `offset`/`limit` schema text. Given 7 mostly-optional params and a nested `filters` object, the description is adequate but leaves the agent to read the schema for return shape.

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% and the schema docs already spell out each filter key, embed, field, limit, order, offset and direction in detail. The description's list of searchable fields partly duplicates `filters` documentation, adding only a summary, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (individuals) and enumerates the searchable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool covers. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `sellsy_list_individuals` (unfiltered listing) or `sellsy_search` (global search), which an agent must infer.

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 word "Search" plus the enumerated filter fields implies this is the filtered-query path, and "Needs individuals.read" states the prerequisite scope. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, and no pointer to `list_individuals` or `get_individual` as alternatives.

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