Search Persons

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

Annotations indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: PII sensitivity, tier requirement, return structure (separate lists), and stable IDs. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and critical constraint (tier), followed by return structure and downstream usage. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's straightforward nature, lack of output schema, and presence of annotations, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, constraints, return structure, and linkage to other tools. Minor omission: what exactly the hit lists contain (e.g., person name, ID) but inferable from sibling tools.

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 coverage is 75% with three of four parameters described. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, as the schema already explains 'q', 'birth_year', and 'kommune_hint' clearly. The 'limit' parameter lacks description but has default and constraints.

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 clearly states the action (search), the resource (Norwegian persons), and the dataset (shareholder/role-holder). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_person by noting it returns hit lists with stable IDs for further use.

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 explicitly notes the PII-sensitive nature and required tier (search_full_enabled). It also explains how to use the results by passing IDs to get_person_companies and get_person_roles, providing clear contextual guidance.

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