List People Found

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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world/non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the call is free, it does not trigger a new search, and results expire after 30 days. It also discloses the shape of each entry (best-scoring result plus found_by), which annotations do not.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core semantics and cost/retention facts. The middle sentence is a dense enumeration of filters that largely restates the schema, which slightly dilutes an otherwise tight structure.

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 an 11-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape, filtering, sorting, and a retention boundary. Pagination behavior (cursor/limit) is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but the only remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the filter surface (q, has, sort, location, verification, audience, fit score) but adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond the schema, and omits limit/cursor handling.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('List People Found') and immediately scopes it: results from prior People Searches on one platform, one entry per person. It distinguishes itself from the search-running sibling by stating 'it does not run a new search'.

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?

Explicitly frames when this is used (retrieve existing results) and when it is not ('does not run a new search'), which routes the agent to people-search. The retention caveat ('searches that ended more than 30 days ago are left out') further conditions use, though no sibling is named directly.

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