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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: private contact and employment fields are explicitly null, and the data scope is bounded public-reference data. It also mentions pricing. However, it does not disclose whether results are paginated, how they are ordered, response shape, or any rate/error behavior.

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 dense sentence with no filler. The primary purpose and filters are front-loaded, followed by data-scope and pricing details. It could be slightly clearer if broken into two sentences, but it remains efficient and readable.

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 tool with 13 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It gives useful scope and pricing context, but omits how to combine filters, what result fields look like, how pagination works, and what error conditions may arise. An agent would still need to infer much from raw schema names and types.

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?

The schema has 13 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does map the main filter dimensions to likely parameters (name, location, skill, title, seniority, company), but it does not explain the value/exclude/exact_match object structure, offset/search_after pagination semantics, or limit behavior. The compensation is therefore partial at best.

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 action ('Search people') on a clear resource, and enumerates the filter dimensions: name, location, skill, title, seniority, and company. It adds a scope qualifier ('bounded public-reference data') that helps set expectations, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like people_enrich or profile_search.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as people_enrich, profile_search, or tweets_search. It does not state prerequisites, whether at least one filter is required, or when another tool would be more appropriate. The context is only implicit from the purpose statement.

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