Search people

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it "Returns a compact list," which hints at a trimmed response format (relevant given the `raw` flag), but it says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or match semantics.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded before the return-format note. Every clause carries 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 14-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it never explains pagination defaults, sort behavior, or the `raw` toggle, and gives no usage routing against siblings. The "compact list" note is the only return-value context provided.

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 14 parameters and only 64% schema description coverage, several params (city, phone_number, tags) have no schema description, and the description partially compensates by naming which fields are searchable. It omits pagination, sorting, `raw`, and `not_contacted_since` semantics, so it adds modest value over the schema.

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 ("Search") and resource ("contacts (people)"), and enumerates the searchable dimensions (name, email, company, tags, assignee, location), so the agent knows exactly what this tool does. It does not, however, contrast itself with the closely related sibling find_person_by_email.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The overlap with find_person_by_email is left unaddressed, so an agent has no stated rule for choosing between a broad search and a targeted lookup.

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