person.cross-registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions cross-registry sweep, per-registry found/error blocks, and candidate nature. However, it omits details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The provided behavior is moderate but incomplete.

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 three sentences, each adding value: function, output nature, and usage context. No redundant information, well-structured, and front-loaded with key action.

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, the description provides a reasonable overview of the response format (per-registry found/error blocks with matching records) and the candidate nature. It includes all five registries. Minor gaps exist, such as missing details on error handling or pagination, but overall sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of the parameter meaning. The description adds context about the sweep scope but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool sweeps a person's name across five specific US public registries, lists them, and mentions the output is non-resolved candidates. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that target individual registries.

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 context for due-diligence and background-research triage, and notes that results are candidates requiring identity verification. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or offer direct comparisons to alternative single-registry tools.

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