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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on pagination behavior, result volume, or that offset ranges up to 5000 — so it contributes essentially nothing on this dimension.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core verb and scoping fields come first 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?

There is no output schema, so the description arguably should hint at what a match returns (authority record shape/identifiers) — it does not. For a simple read-only search with full parameter documentation, it is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it enumerates what can be searched (name components, dates, acronym, variant names) whereas the schema only says 'Name or acronym to search.' That elaboration is directly useful for constructing the query value.

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 (person and named-body authority records), and the field list (name components, dates, acronym, variant name) narrows the scope further. It implicitly separates it from search_documents/search_organisations/search_events by naming the record type, but never explicitly addresses the sibling get_name, so the search-vs-retrieve distinction is left to inference.

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, no exclusions, and no alternative sibling named. The description tells the agent how to query but nothing about when search_names is the right choice versus get_name or search_organisations.

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