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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: a hard result cap of 3, a privacy guarantee that no member-identifying fields are returned, and the presence of an application URL in the response — exactly the kind of disclosure a caller cannot infer from annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the negative-space disclosure and the response contents. Each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does: it specifies a count (max 3), states that identifying member details are withheld, and notes the included application URL. Nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret this tool 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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions with length limits and an example, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the intent of `seeking` but never mentions the optional `company` parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it checks whether Rep's membership contains executives matching what the caller is seeking (相談・採用・提携など) and returns a headcount capped at 3. It also explicitly states what is NOT returned (names, company names, business details, location), which sharply bounds the tool's output. It does not name or differentiate against the only sibling, rep_get_basic_info, so it stops 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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated seeking categories (consultation, hiring, partnership), which tells the agent the kind of query this tool answers. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the sibling rep_get_basic_info as an alternative for profile-style questions, and no prerequisite or rate-limit note.

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