search_people

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses subscription requirements, credit usage (none), and that emails are not returned. This is good but lacks details on pagination behavior or response structure. Still, it sufficiently informs the agent of key behaviors and limitations.

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 two tight sentences followed by a short paragraph of essential notes. Every sentence adds value (purpose, requirements, limitations, alternatives). No fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool has 6 parameters (all documented in schema), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, credit consumption, email availability, and alternative tools. This is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with good descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description only adds a high-level mention of filters ('by title, location, or seniority'), which doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Hence a 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 verb 'search' and the resource 'Apollo's people database' and mentions key filters (title, location, seniority). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_companies and enrich_person by specifying it searches for people, not companies, and by not returning emails, which is a differentiator.

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 explicitly states the required plan (Apollo Basic or higher) to avoid 403 errors, clarifies that it does not consume credits, and notes that it does not return emails. It provides clear alternatives (hunter_find_email, enrich_person) for obtaining emails, giving the agent explicit guidance on when to use this tool and when to switch.

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