Research Attendee

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add one genuinely useful trait: a 60-minute cache that makes repeat calls free of new API requests — a real cost/latency signal an agent can plan around. It omits the rest of the profile though: that this hits an external enrichment API, what happens for an unknown or ambiguous person, whether it fails soft or hard, and whether there is any cost or rate limit on the first call.

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, zero filler. The purpose leads, and the caching caveat follows as supporting operational detail rather than burying the lede.

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 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description needn't explain parameters or return values, and it supplies purpose plus a caching trait. What keeps it from a 5 is the absence of any routing signal among the many overlapping sibling research/enrichment tools, which is the main thing an agent could still get wrong.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in structured form, and the description adds nothing above that baseline. It never mentions that 'company' and 'context' improve accuracy — a meaningful hint that lives only in the schema, not the description. 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?

A specific verb ('Research') plus a specific resource ('a meeting attendee') and an enumeration of what the research returns: current role, company news, background. This is far more than a restatement of the name. It doesn't, however, distinguish itself from the closely related siblings get_person_history and get_crm_context, whose scopes overlap enough that an agent could plausibly reach for the wrong one.

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?

No sentence says when to call this instead of get_person_history or enrich_brief_with_crm, or what the prerequisites are (does it need an existing meeting? an email address?). The only usage-adjacent content is the caching note, which tells the agent re-calling is cheap but not when calling is appropriate at all.

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