find_individual

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: token matching against all NAME records (primary + AKAs), and the return format (compact summaries with specific fields). It does not mention case sensitivity, partial matching, or pagination, but the disclosed behavior is significant and useful.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds specific value (matching behavior and return content). There is no fluff or repetition of schema-visible information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description already explains the return fields, adding value. It covers purpose and matching logic well. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or limit behavior, but for a straightforward search tool, it is adequately complete and minimal-viable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter's semantics (tokens matched against names) but does not mention 'limit' or its effect (truncating results). The description adds meaning to one of two parameters only, so it partially compensates but not fully.

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 a specific action ('Search for individuals by name') and resource ('individuals'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_individual (likely ID-based) and find_family by focusing on name search. It also details the matching logic and return fields, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context: it is a name-based search tool that matches tokens against primary and AKA names. This implies when to use it (when you have a name) versus alternatives like get_individual (by ID) or find_family (families), but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it misses the highest bar.

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