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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses that the operation is free and previews the result contents, including appearance counts. It does not explain name-matching behavior, ranking, result limits, or pagination, but those omissions are modest for a simple lookup 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?

The description is exceptionally compact while conveying scope, lookup method, output fields, and cost. Its telegraphic phrasing is slightly awkward, but there is no filler and the most important scope information comes first.

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 one-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description supplies enough information to understand the input and expected results, plus the useful fact that it is free. Explicit sibling differentiation and brief search or pagination behavior would make it more complete.

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?

With no schema descriptions, 'by name' supplies the essential meaning of the otherwise undocumented query parameter. It does not clarify whether partial names, full names, or other person-related text are accepted, nor provide an example query.

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 identifies name-based discovery of people whom podcasts interview or discuss, and lists the principal returned fields: slug, descriptor, and appearance counts. It is clear about the resource and scope, but does not explicitly distinguish this search tool from get_person or find_podcasts.

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 phrases 'People podcasts talk to and talk about' and 'by name' provide clear context for using the tool for name-based people discovery within podcast content. It lacks explicit routing to get_person when a slug is already known or to find_podcasts when the user wants shows rather than people.

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