searchPeopleByTag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: comma-separated tags are matched with OR logic, meaning a person matches if they have any of the specified tags. This goes beyond a simple 'find people' statement. It does not mention pagination or return format, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 two sentences long, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a crucial usage detail (OR matching) with an example. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema 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?

For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what it finds and how multiple tags are interpreted. Pagination parameters are documented in the schema, so their absence in the description is acceptable. It could be more complete by mentioning default limits or return structure, but the current description is adequate for an agent to 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that comma-separated tags produce OR matching, using a concrete example. This clarifies the semantics of the 'tags' parameter beyond the schema's basic description.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('all people') with a clear method ('by tags'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like listPeople by specifying the tag-based search mechanism. The OR matching example further clarifies the exact behavior.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to find people by tags. It provides specific usage instructions for multiple tags (comma-separated for OR matching). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions seen in top-tier examples.

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