Find people

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing the two underlying data sources (Exchange GAL plus personal contacts), a directory-specific trait not in the annotations. It does not describe matching behavior (exact vs fuzzy), pagination, or empty-result handling, so it stays mid-range.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded and the usage/alternative cue immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, sources, and usage well enough to call the tool correctly with no required parameters. Only minor gaps remain (matching semantics, how query and queries interact).

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% (limit, query, queries all documented with formats and bounds), so the baseline is 3. The only parameter-adjacent value the description adds is the `is_me` marker, which is a result field rather than an input parameter, and it doesn't clarify query vs. queries interplay.

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) plus the two concrete resources it covers (organization address book / Exchange GAL and the user's contacts) and lists the fields it resolves (name, email, job title, department). No sibling tool does people lookup, and this is instantly distinguishable from search_messages, list_senders, or get_message.

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 clear triggering contexts: 'get an exact address before send_email' and 'find out who someone is', naming the downstream sibling tool send_email. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g. when to prefer list_senders or search_messages), which keeps it just 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.