Control People Search

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: pause timing (queued pauses at once, running finishes its batch, status pausing then paused), a 7-day auto-cancel rule, resume with no new charge, cancel billing/refund semantics, and 30-day result retention. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and none are derivable from the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core action and cost ('Pause, resume, or cancel a People Search task. Free.') then dedicates one tight clause group per action. Every sentence carries distinct information about behavior, billing, or retention; nothing is redundant.

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?

With only two well-documented parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining operational detail (timing, billing, retention, irreversibility of cancel). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the effect of each enum value (what pause/resume/cancel actually do to the task), which meaningfully enriches the bare enum list. It does not add format details for task_id beyond the schema's UUID example, hence not a 5.

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 specific verbs (pause, resume, cancel) on a specific resource (a People Search task), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is clearly distinct from siblings like people-search-status and people-search-tasks, which read rather than mutate task state.

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?

Each action is given a clear behavioral condition (queued vs running, paused-where-it-stopped, stops-for-good), which tells the agent when each applies. However, it never routes the agent against alternatives such as people-search-status or people-search-tasks for read-only inspection, so the guidance stops short of explicit when-not/alternative statements.

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