search_staff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral and data-scope context by noting that results include email and room only where published, which is valuable beyond 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and follows with the return shape. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple search tool with one required parameter, a defaulted limit, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It states what to search by, what results look like, and the relevant scope caveat.

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 query as 'Name or part of a name' and limit as 'Maximum people.' The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, but the schema carries the burden adequately, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (find) and resource (university staff), and clarifies the search is by name. It also lists the returned fields (ids, unit, email, room), making the tool's scope and output clear and distinguishable from search tools for other entities.

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 states the use case: finding staff by name. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_staff or explain when to prefer one over the other, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance, but the intended context is clear.

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