search_matches

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ghost mode and anonymous browsing, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. While helpful, it lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure expected for a mutation-ambiguous tool.

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 concise sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the main function, highlighting ghost mode capability, and explaining how results are ranked. No fluff or 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?

With no output schema, the description should detail return values. It mentions 'ranked matches based on semantic similarity' but does not specify the structure of the matches, fields returned, or pagination. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'ghost mode' and 'browse anonymously', which mirrors the schema descriptions for query_needs and query_offers. It does not provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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's purpose: finding relevant people on the Mingle network. It specifies the verb 'find', the resource 'people', and key context like ghost mode and semantic similarity ranking. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle publishing, rating, and introductions.

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 scenarios, such as when the user has no published card (ghost mode). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like get_digest or other search functions. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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