search_advisors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful traits: the data source and the CC-BY-4.0 attribution obligation an agent should honor. It says nothing about read-only behavior, result ordering, pagination, or what a result record contains, which leaves meaningful gaps for a search 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?

Very short and front-loaded with the resource definition, then the endpoint and attribution. The URL is mildly redundant given the endpoint is inherent to the tool, but nothing is bloated and it is easy to scan.

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 four-parameter, read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers identity and licensing but omits usage context and result-shape hints that would help an agent decide between it and its ten siblings.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds no extra detail about q, focus, status, or limit beyond what the schema already documents. No enums exist, and the comma-separated OR syntax is already captured in the schema.

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 first sentence names the resource precisely — people offering AI safety career and research advice — which distinguishes it from siblings like search_jobs or search_courses. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb or scope statement, so the 'search' action is only implied by the name rather than stated in the description.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. The API URL is not a substitute for telling an agent when this tool is the right choice versus search_communities or search_founder_resources.

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