Find people

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the result shape (name, email, department, site) in the absence of an output schema, plus the substring-match behavior. It stops short of covering pagination or empty-result behavior.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the return-value note.

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 two-parameter read-only search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies the missing piece: the fields returned. Only pagination/result-count behavior is left unaddressed.

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 both parameters (name_or_email, limit) are already documented in the schema, including the literal-match rule and the 1-100 range. The description's 'contains the given text' restates rather than extends that, and it says nothing about the limit parameter. 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?

The description names a specific verb (find) and resource (people), and specifies the matching field (name or email contains the given text). It also lists the returned fields. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but no sibling tool operates on people, so the resource itself is distinguishing.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'find' and the match semantics; there is no statement of when to prefer this over other lookups or any exclusion. No guidance on limit/pagination or what to do when many people match.

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