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

Explains the non-obvious side effect that justifies readOnlyHint=false: an exact missing @handle lookup can record the handle locally for coverage review, with no provider call or promise of addition. This is exactly the kind of write-behavior disclosure annotations cannot convey on their own.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and alternative, then the identity caveat and the write side effect. Every sentence earns its place, though the final clause about coverage review is wordy enough to slow the read slightly.

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, but the description pairs with a rich cursor/limit schema to cover pagination, and it discloses the mutation-like side effect and identity-confirmation caveat. Return-shape detail (candidate fields, ranking) is left implicit, which is the only real gap for a 3-param search tool.

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 query/limit/cursor semantics are already documented. The description restates the accepted query forms (handle, platform user ID, display-name prefix) and adds a note about exact missing handles, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 and resource (find author candidates) and immediately distinguishes the tool from get_author, which handles profile/posts/activity. An agent can pick between the search and lookup tools without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when the user wants to research an X author by handle or name') and names the complementary tool with its role ('then use get_author for profile, posts and activity'). Adds a caution that name matches may be historical and the intended identity should be confirmed.

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