Get People Search Status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantially more: cost ('Free'), the pagination/cursor semantics, what completion_reason means, the coverage_limited warning when a budget truncated results, partial_enrichment with the failed enrichment marker, and the meaning of fully_verified/unverified_criteria (informational only, not disqualifying). That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

It is front-loaded with what the tool returns and efficiently packs cost, pagination, completion, warnings, and per-person fields into one dense paragraph. It is long and unsegmented (no line breaks or bullets), which slightly hurts scannability, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs to interpret the response.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears full responsibility for return-value semantics and it discharges that thoroughly: page contents, per-person fields, pagination lifecycle, completion state, budget-truncation warning, enrichment failure, and verification flags. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation or interpretation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it explains the cursor-chaining contract (feed the returned next_cursor back as cursor) and that the page contains people found 'since then', which is not stated in the schema's cursor description.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it returns the status, progress, and cost of ONE People Search task, plus a page of the people found. Scoping to a single task implicitly separates it from people-search-tasks (list) and people-search (start), and the cursor-based polling contract further distinguishes it from any sibling that only kicks off or cancels a 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?

It gives clear operating context: 'Free', call it while the search runs, pass the returned next_cursor as cursor to get only newly found people, and the termination condition (done true + has_more false). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an exclusion (e.g., when to prefer people-search-control for canceling), so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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