Search ChurchTools persons

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the projected return shape (id, first/last name, email, status id) rather than the whole person record. It omits pagination behavior, though the schema's page/limit parameters largely cover that.

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, both load-bearing: the first states what is searched, the second states what is returned and where to go for more. No filler and front-loaded with the capability.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing returned fields, and annotations carry the safety profile. Minor gap: no note on pagination/result-size limits despite page and limit parameters, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents all six parameters including defaults and status_id 0 semantics. The description's mention of text/email/status/archive maps onto query, email, status_ids and is_archived but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (Finds) and resource (persons) and enumerates the search axes (text, email, status, archive state). It also names the sibling ct_get_person and explains the distinct scope, so an agent can route between search and fetch without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly points to ct_get_person for the full record, giving a clear condition for choosing the alternative. It does not spell out when-not-to-use beyond that (e.g. bulk listing), but the routing guidance is concrete.

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