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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are fone.me links, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, ranking, or what happens when no match is found. Adds some context beyond annotations, hence a 3.

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 with zero filler; the search verb and examples come first, followed by the return value. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers what is searched, how to phrase the query, and what comes back. Minor gaps around result count behavior and follow-up tools remain, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description supplements the query parameter with concrete natural-language examples that clarify the expected input style ('real estate agent in Miami'). The limit parameter is not mentioned in either place, keeping it short of a 5.

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) plus resource (people's and businesses' AI agents) and scopes it to 'what they do or offer'. It does not name or contrast with the siblings get_agent and message_agent, so differentiation is left to inference, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 through the examples ('dog walker', 'real estate agent in Miami'), which suggest discovery-by-capability. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no routing to get_agent or message_agent for follow-up actions.

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