search_people

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it states that results deliberately omit contact details, account roles, login data, biography, and UI settings. It also discloses pagination behavior via next_offset and has_more. This gives the agent a clearer picture of what to expect without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a key distinction, then operational details. Every sentence earns its place and the description stays scannable.

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?

The description is appropriately complete for a search tool with an output schema. It covers the identity-search scope, the unit-filter prerequisite, omitted fields, and pagination. It does not elaborate on limit, offset, or active_only, but these have defaults in the schema and are less critical. Overall, an agent has enough guidance to call 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It does explain that 'query' accepts a name, username, alias, or ORCID, and that 'unit' requires an exact ID from list_units. However, it does not provide semantics for limit, offset, or active_only, which remain undocumented in the schema as well. The pagination reference (next_offset/has_more) applies to output, not input parameters, so coverage is only partial.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a name, username, alias, or ORCID to exact person IDs.' It also explicitly separates this from 'research expertise search,' directly differentiating it from the sibling search_experts. This gives an agent immediate clarity on what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools.

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 a clear when-not: 'This is an identity search, not a research expertise search,' steering agents away from search_experts. It also tells the agent that the optional unit filter requires an exact ID from list_units, which is a concrete prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer this over get_person or other alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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