search_people

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are 'ranked candidates' and the search is intentionally broader than exact identity matching. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides routing guidance, and the third describes the output nature. Everything earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read-only search with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, matching behavior, output style, and the key alternative. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description compensates partially: 'free-text' clarifies `query` semantics and 'returns ranked candidates' suggests result ordering. However, `limit` is not explained in prose beyond its schema default, so the parameter guidance is incomplete.

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 leads with 'Free-text search over stored people for browsing or lookup,' giving a specific verb, resource, and use case. It also distinguishes itself from `resolve_person` by framing this tool as broader and candidate-returning rather than single-identity resolution.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when you want to list known people matching a query, rather than to pin down a single identity, and names `resolve_person` as the alternative. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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