company_people

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

The description notes that 'supplied proofs are verified' and 'provider effects remain external', which hints at some verification and side-effect behavior. However, these phrases are vague and do not clearly state whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, or has any destructive actions. The overall behavior remains opaque.

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 relatively short (two sentences) and does not contain obvious fluff. However, the phrasing is dense and jargon-heavy, and the structure could be improved by separating the purpose from the behavioral details. It is concise but not well-structured.

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 lacks essential context: it does not define the parameters, describe the output schema, explain when to use the tool, or mention any side effects or prerequisites. Given the low schema coverage and vague wording, the description is far from complete.

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?

The schema has seven parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any of them. Parameters like 'operation', 'entity_ref', and 'bundle_json' are left entirely undefined, leaving the user without any semantic guidance.

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 the tool 'inspects or advances people' and mentions a 'scoped lifecycle', but 'people' and 'advance' are ambiguous. It does not specify what people refers to (e.g., employees, contacts) or what advancing entails. The purpose is only partially clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like company_people_ops or company_employees. No conditions, prerequisites, or differentiation from sibling tools are mentioned.

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