people_search_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful contexts such as the possibility of no results due to permissions ('verify module permissions') and the suggestion to broaden search terms. However, it does not describe return formatting, pagination behavior, or matching semantics beyond 'flexible text-based criteria'.

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?

The description is well-structured with bold headers that front-load the core purpose and then organize supporting details efficiently. Each section (Prerequisites, Next Steps, Use Cases, Error Recovery) earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, next steps, common use cases, and error recovery—all essential context. It effectively integrates with sibling tools and prepares the agent for realistic outcomes (e.g., empty results prompting broader search or permission checks).

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 descriptions for all 5 parameters, giving baseline 3. The description adds value by connecting parameters to other tools: 'Module name from people_get_all_modules' and 'optional field details from people_get_fields' clarify where module_name and fields originate. It also illustrates valid module_name values through use cases.

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 begins with a clear verb-object pair ('Search records in a People module') and specifies the method ('flexible text-based criteria'). It includes specific use cases (employee lookup, department searches, attendance tracking) that distinguish it from siblings like people_get_all_modules, people_get_fields, and people_get_timeline.

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?

The description provides clear context through 'Prerequisites', 'Next Steps', 'Use Cases', and 'Error Recovery' sections. It tells the agent when to use the tool (after obtaining module from people_get_all_modules) and what to do after (people_get_timeline), but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative search tools.

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