Search Persons

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), including partial domain matching for emails, partial name matching, empty term behavior, pagination details, and the meaning of the 'type' field (0=external, 1=internal). It does not repeat or contradict 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 well-structured with clear sections (Search Behavior, Parameters, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose. It includes a full JSON example that is helpful given the lack of an output schema. Every sentence adds value, but it is slightly verbose with the example and parameter list.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description covers essential aspects: search behavior, parameter details, pagination, return format with example, and use cases. It explains the type field and interaction dates. However, it does not elaborate on withInteractionPersons or withOpportunities beyond the schema, nor does it mention the openWorldHint implications.

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?

While the input schema has 100% description coverage, the description enriches parameter semantics by explaining behavioral details (e.g., 'Partial domain matching works' for term, 'Omit to list all persons'). It also maps parameters to use cases in the examples, adding value beyond the schema alone.

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 'Search for persons (contacts) in Affinity by email, first name, or last name.' It specifies the verb (Search), resource (persons/contacts), and how it differs from related tools like affinity_get_person by supporting partial matching and listing all persons when no term is provided.

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 explicit use cases: find by email, search by name, list all persons. It gives example scenarios like 'Look up person by email before creating' and 'Find all persons at a company.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it directly with sibling tools like affinity_get_person or affinity_list_persons.

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