read_people

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses that results are 'fully paged over all users' and that matching requires every word to match. This helps the agent anticipate potentially large result sets and exact-match behavior. No contradiction with 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 short sentences deliver distinct, high-value information: search behavior, default listing, and a practical tip. There is no filler or repetition, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and query semantics, but it doesn't document 'includeInactive' and doesn't describe the return payload beyond the presence of ids. The missing parameter explanation is a gap, though the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory.

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 only 33% (only limit is described). The tool description compensates somewhat by explaining that 'query' matches name, login, or email and that all words must match, plus the no-query default. However, it leaves 'includeInactive' undefined, so one parameter remains semantically underspecified.

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 exact resource ('people'), the search criteria (name, login, email), and the key matching constraint ('every word must match'). This clearly differentiates it from broader search siblings like read_search or read_query, even without naming them.

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 context such as the no-query default ('Without a query, lists everyone active') and a practical follow-up ('Use the returned ids when a name is ambiguous'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like read_search. Usage is implied but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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