listPeople

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that tag filtering uses OR logic and that email lookup is supported - both are parameter semantics rather than deeper behavioral traits. Critically, it omits any mention of pagination (despite limit, offset, next params in schema), default scoping (e.g., whether trashed people are excluded by default), or response format. This is a significant gap for a list/search tool with 27 parameters.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently lists key filter options and provides two specific usage notes. No redundant phrases or filler. The final sentence about email lookup could be seen as slightly obvious, but it is brief and reinforces a common use case.

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?

This is a complex tool with 27 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too sparse to be complete. It does not mention pagination behavior, default result set, or response structure, which are essential for an agent to correctly use a list/search operation. The description covers the 'what' but not the 'how' of handling result sets or edge cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that the tags parameter uses comma-separated OR logic, which is not stated in the schema. It also groups filter capabilities (price range, smart list) that map to multiple schema parameters, helping the agent understand intended usage.

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 clearly states 'List/search people in FUB' which is a specific verb+resource. It enumerates multiple filter dimensions (name, email, phone, tags, etc.) providing a clear scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getPerson, getPersonByEmail, or searchPeopleByTag, which could be relevant alternatives for specific lookups.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool to list or search people with a broad set of filters. It provides specific parameter guidance ('For tag filtering use the tags parameter', 'For email lookup use the email parameter'), but it does not mention when to prefer alternative tools like getPersonByEmail for exact email lookup or searchPeopleByTag for tag-only searches.

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