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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and scope profile is covered. The description still adds value by flagging that the source must be 'authorized' (an auth precondition) and by reinforcing the read-only nature. It stops short of describing result format or pagination behavior, but with annotations present this is a genuinely helpful addition.

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, front-loaded with the core action and capped by the safety qualifier. Minimal waste, though 'Read-only' is largely redundant with readOnlyHint and the sentence could have spent those words on limit/cosignedBy semantics instead.

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?

With no output schema and 4 parameters at 50% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about result shape, pagination tied to the limit cap of 50, and how cosignedBy filters. It covers the core search intent but is thin for a tool with this parameter surface.

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 only 50%, so half the parameters (type and limit) carry no schema-level documentation. The description partially compensates by enumerating the entity types that map to the 'type' enum, but it says nothing about limit semantics or how cosignedBy narrows results. Baseline 3 for a mid-coverage 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 description gives a specific verb (Search) and resource (an authorized Cosign data source) and enumerates the entity types it can return: people, companies, products, or jobs. That is enough for an agent to know exactly what the tool retrieves. No siblings exist to differentiate from, so the only small gap is that 'Cosign data source' is left unglossed.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Search ... for people, companies, products, or jobs' but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements. Nothing tells the agent how to choose among the type values or when cosignedBy should be supplied versus omitted. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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