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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the 'opt-in public' scope, which is useful context, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as result ordering, pagination, or special search semantics. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description adds limited but non-zero value.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 7 words, front-loaded and free of any filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool is simple, with 5 optional parameters fully described in the schema and strong annotations covering safety and world-view. The description clearly states the search target, but does not mention return format or ordering. Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of sufficient structured metadata, the description is mostly complete, though not exhaustive.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on any parameters; all parameter meaning is already provided by the input schema. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search opt-in public Sleeper Hit Studio writer profiles.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('writer profiles') with a scope ('opt-in public'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_projects and get_writer_profile.

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 description implies usage for searching public writer profiles but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or find_projects. No exclusions or references to sibling tools are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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