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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no mention of pagination limits, whether results are ranked, or what happens with partial matches. For a read-only search with full annotation coverage, the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond the safety fields.

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?

One efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It is compact, though the long enumeration of identifier types makes it slightly dense and could be structured as a list. No wasted words.

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 simple read-only search with full parameter documentation and complete annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: no sibling differentiation, no return value hints (no output schema), and no guidance on result ranking or pagination behavior. It is minimal viable.

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% (limit, offset, query all documented). The description adds marginal value by naming the identifier types that query accepts, but the schema already states 'Name, acronym, or external authority identifier'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: searching person and named-body authority records. The description enumerates searchable identifier types (ORCID, ISNI, LCNAF, VIAF, Wikidata), which is precise. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_name or other search_* tools, so and agent cannot route between search_names and get_name from this text alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or exclusions. The description enumerates searchable fields but never says when to use search_names versus get_name, or how it relates to the other search_* siblings. An agent must infer usage entirely.

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