search_person_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions wrapping NBAPI SearchPersonData and the omit-all-filters behavior, but does not disclose return format, pagination, result size limits, or deleted-record default handling, which are important for a search tool with no output 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?

Two concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds a useful operational note without waste, though it could be considered slightly redundant with the schema's optionality.

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 35-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It confirms the filter surface and the empty-criteria behavior but does not describe the response shape, which the agent must infer. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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%, with all 35 parameters already described in the input schema. The description adds nothing beyond stating that every filter field is modeled explicitly, which merely restates the schema rather than enriching parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (searches) and resource (person records), and clarifies the search-by-criteria semantics. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_person, which is a direct single-record fetch — an agent must infer the distinction between search and direct retrieval.

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?

Provides only the operational note that omitting all filters returns every record. It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_person or other sibling read tools, and names no alternatives or exclusions.

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