notable_searchSearch the public Dayze notable-people catalog by name, occupation, or slug. Use when you need to find a person before fetching a pack. Example slug: albert-einstein. ($0.01)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | Number of matches returned. | |
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the search is over a 'public' catalog and incurs a cost ('$0.01'). No contradiction. It does not add details about result limits beyond the schema, but the output schema covers that.
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?
Three sentences with no fluff: action/scope, usage condition, and example/cost. The most important information is 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?
For a simple search tool with two well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, example value, and cost. Nothing essential is missing.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds an example slug ('albert-einstein') that clarifies the expected format for the 'q' parameter, and the cost note adds operational context. This exceeds baseline.
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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('public Dayze notable-people catalog'), and the search fields ('by name, occupation, or slug'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic search tools and sibling tools like get_people by focusing on lookup before fetching a pack.
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?
Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when you need to find a person before fetching a pack.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources, but get_context_pack and get_life_context overlap heavily, and get_money_between_people is an intentional duplicate alias of get_person_transactions. The rest are mostly clear due to explicit descriptions.
Naming is predominantly verb_noun snake_case with clear families (get_*, log_*, update_*, search_*, notable_*). Minor inconsistencies: create_person breaks the add_inventory_* pattern, and one-off verbs like record_, attach_, merge_ are not part of a uniform scheme.
With 64 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ extreme threshold. The broad personal-life domain justifies many tools, but the count creates significant selection overhead and feels bloated, especially with redundant aliases and overlapping context pack variants.
The set covers inventory, CRM, events, food, expenses, travel, places, photos, Gmail, and notable-people lookup with strong read/write/search coverage. Minor gaps include no delete operations for events/people/food (only archive/update) and no explicit place creation.