person.cross-registry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are candidates, not resolved, and advises verification with registry identifiers. It also mentions per-registry found/error blocks. It does not discuss rate limits or destructive actions, but the nature (sweeping search) implies read-only, which is acceptable.

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 and front-loaded: first sentence lists registries, second explains candidate nature, third gives use case. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Ideal structure for quick agent comprehension.

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 no output schema, the description mentions 'Per-registry found/error blocks with matching records,' which provides sufficient context about the return structure. It could elaborate on exact record fields per registry, but the high-level completeness is adequate for agent triage.

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% with parameter descriptions for 'name' and 'limit' in the schema. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format tips or additional constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool sweeps a person name across five specific US public registries, lists them explicitly, and distinguishes that results are name-matched candidates, not identity-resolved. This differentiates it from single-registry siblings like license.broker or law.attorney-lookup.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating 'Due-diligence and background-research triage,' indicating when to use the tool for broad cross-registry searches. It does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives like individual registry tools, but the context is clear.

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