Search People

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower here. The description adds the downstream purpose (recipient IDs for MIO) but says nothing about result volume, partial-match behavior, or whether searching is case/accent sensitive.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the use case following. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. For a one-parameter read tool the definition is nearly sufficient; only the lack of routing guidance versus sibling people-lookup tools is a real gap.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'Name or partial name to search for'. The description only restates 'by name' and adds no matching-prefix or minimum-length guidance, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for people') and enumerates the entity types covered (students, teachers, employees), which is more precise than the title alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get-teachers or get-course-people, so an agent must infer that this is the cross-directory name 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 gives one concrete use case: finding recipient IDs for send-mio-message, which is genuinely helpful context. It offers no exclusions or alternatives (e.g. use get-course-people for a roster within a course), so when-not-to-use is left to inference.

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