List People Search Tasks

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds context annotations cannot carry: the call is free, results are newest-first, and terminal searches expose a stop reason (completion_reason, coverage_limited). It does not discuss pagination limits or rate behavior beyond the free note, so not a 5.

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 identity and ordering before the return-field list and the usage sentence; every clause carries information. The dense parenthetical field enumeration is justified because there is no output schema, though it makes the sentence long.

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 no output schema, the description steps in to name the returned fields (status, counts, cost, completion_reason, coverage_limited, metadata labels), and the schema fully covers the five filters and pagination. Coverage is strong; only the exact shape of counts/cost is left implicit.

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 intent behind the metadata filter — using it to isolate one campaign's searches — which is more than the schema's mechanical 'exact match, up to 3' wording. It does not touch limit, cursor, or platform.

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 a specific verb and resource ('People Search tasks'), scoped to the caller ('Your') and ordered ('newest first'), and enumerates what each task carries. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like people-search-status or people-search-control.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases: retrieving a task_id (with the metadata-filter trick for one campaign's searches) and inspecting queued/running/paused work. It also explains why that second case matters — new searches are refused while too many are active. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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