Search Persons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value beyond that by disclosing PII sensitivity, the required access tier, and the structure of results (separate hit lists with stable IDs). This provides useful operational context not present in 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 three sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes only essential details (PII, tier, output usage). No redundant content, every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently covers the tool's complexity: it names the dataset, access constraint, PII sensitivity, result types, and downstream usage. No critical contextual gaps remain.

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% (q, birth_year, kommune_hint have descriptions, limit does not). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it relies on the schema's adequate descriptions. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool searches for Norwegian persons in the shareholder/role-holder dataset by name, distinguishing it from sibling tools like firmaradar_search_companies. It also specifies the return types (shareholder and role-holder hit lists), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 implies usage context by noting the PII-sensitive tier requirement and that returned stable IDs can be passed to get_person_companies and get_person_roles. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_companies or get_person, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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