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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that private contact and employment fields are null, and mentions cost per call, which is useful. However, it does not explain behavior like pagination, filtering semantics, or what happens with unmatched queries, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise, two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and additional context (data source, null fields, cost) placed after. It avoids fluff, though 'FullEnrich filter shape' is jargon that might not be universally understood.

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?

Given 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It does not cover filter shapes, pagination (offset, search_after), or response format, leaving the agent to guess. Only the data source and cost are contextualized.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the 13 parameters or the 'FullEnrich filter shape' beyond the name. The agent has no additional meaning about how to construct filters like person_names or current_company_domains from the description alone.

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 clear verb ('Search') and resource ('people'), and specifies the data source (bounded public Wikimedia) and that private fields are null. It differentiates from sibling enrich tools by indicating it is a search operation, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'bounded public Wikimedia data', implying it is not for private data, but does not name other tools or state when not to use it. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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