people_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that this is a scrape and that it requires consent, which is a significant behavioral and ethical trait. However, it does not explain what data is returned, whether results are real-time, or whether external site restrictions or rate limits may apply, leaving notable 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 a single, well-formed sentence that leads with the core action and packs important contextual information ('free people-search site' and 'consent-gated scrape') into minimal space. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 annotations, no output schema, and four parameters with no schema descriptions, a single sentence is inadequate. It omits details about the expected return data, the critical default of the consent parameter, and any limitations or behavior when the target site blocks scrapes. A more complete description is necessary for safe and effective use.

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 vaguely suggests the 'name' parameter via 'person' and the 'consent' parameter via 'consent-gated', but it fails to explain the meaning of 'age' and 'city_or_state', and does not warn that consent defaults to false, which would likely cause the scrape to fail. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('a person on a free people-search site'), and adds a distinctive qualifier ('consent-gated scrape') that separates it from sibling tools like phone_lookup or email_recon. It clearly states what the tool does and its unique scope.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as person_sweep or genealogy_search. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preference over other lookup tools. The only implied usage is via 'consent-gated', which hints that consent is a requirement, but this is not developed.

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