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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, so the caching note is partly redundant, though "one bounded" and the session-scoping prerequisite add real context. The description never explains why readOnlyHint=false on a pure search (session budget/attempt consumption?) nor any rate or attempt limits, which is a notable gap for a non-read-only tool.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the session precondition both front-loaded.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. Remaining gaps are the undocumented required parameters and the unexplained non-read-only classification, which keep it from being fully self-sufficient for a two-parameter, budget-consuming 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 0% for two required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to define them. It never explains what attempt_id identifies or why it is required, nor does it mention the query length bounds (3–240 chars).

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 ("run one bounded public search") and scopes it to an active enrich_person research session, which distinguishes it from the general search_people sibling. It does not, however, say what corpus is searched or what kind of enrichment data it returns.

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?

The phrase "inside an active enrich_person research session" implies a prerequisite context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs an alternative, and no statement about what to do if no session is active or how this differs from search_people.

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