find_speakers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of returning only stable identities and that it returns 'candidates' (multiple possible), but it does not describe what happens on no match, whether results are ordered, or any other side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first gives the action and target, the second explains the output's intended use and a critical constraint. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the purpose, the return value (candidate IDs), and the limitation to stable identities. It could mention possible multi-result behavior more explicitly, but 'candidates' already implies that. Overall, it covers the essential context.

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 100% because the only parameter, 'name', is already described as 'Speaker name to search for (fuzzy match).' The tool description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Look up enrolled speakers by name.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it returns candidate IDs for use with get_speaker_contributions and emphasizes stable cross-meeting identities, which separates it from transient guest lookups.

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 when to use the tool (when you need speaker IDs for get_speaker_contributions) and provides a clear exclusion criterion: only returns stable cross-meeting identities, not transient per-meeting guests. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_transcripts, but the context is strong enough.

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