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

Annotations only cover the read-only/no-destruction profile, so the description adds real value: the auth prerequisite tied to a specific tool, the account_link_id linkage constraint, and the privacy guarantee that resident numbers are never returned. It stops short of describing pagination or result shape beyond the row keys.

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?

Front-loads the hard prerequisite in the first sentence, then states purpose and return contract. Three dense sentences with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the return contract (row_index/row_key per subscriber, no resident numbers) plus the linked issue-tool workflow and the login precondition. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly in sequence.

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 four parameters are already documented, including account_link_id's UUID format and page defaults. The description reinforces name-based search and the account_link_id pairing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 (workplace subscribers eligible for the NPS membership certificate EC02) and pins the exact certificate code. It is clearly distinguishable from its sibling issue tool, which it names as the consumer of the returned identifiers.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition (prior npki_session login with the same account_link_id) and the downstream relationship (row_index/row_key feed the issue tool), giving clear workflow context. It does not spell out when-not or an alternative tool, keeping it just short of a 5.

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