person_sweep

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

The description discloses that the tool queries free OSINT sources and returns tier-tagged findings, but with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It lacks detail on important behaviors such as whether it requires consent, how name permutations work, what 'tier-tagged' means, or potential for false positives. The presence of parameters like 'verify' and 'consent' suggests significant behavior that is not disclosed.

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-structured sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and outcome efficiently, earning every word it contains.

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?

For a tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It lacks any detail about parameter combinations, result format, or operational expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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 0% and the description provides zero parameter information. There are 13 parameters, but the description does not even mention that a name is required. The schema itself only has titles (e.g., 'Name', 'Depth', 'Engine') without descriptions, so the agent has no guidance on parameter meaning or usage.

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 ('fan a person out') and resource ('across free OSINT sources'), and clearly states the deliverable ('tier-tagged findings'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like username_sweep, email_recon, and phone_lookup, which target specific identifiers.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'if you need X, use Y' guidance.

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