pipedrive_persons_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states which fields are searchable. It says nothing about read-only safety, pagination via cursor, rate limits, or how exact_match affects results, leaving key behavior undisclosed for a 7-parameter 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the searchable-field list is placed immediately after the verb. It is efficient, though the extreme sparseness means it does little work for a tool of this complexity.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits pagination behavior, the organization_id filter, and include_fields. An agent can call it with a term, but cannot anticipate paging or filtering semantics from the text.

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%, so the schema already documents term, limit, cursor, fields, exact_match, include_fields, and organization_id. The description's 'name, email, phone, or custom fields' merely restates the fields parameter, so it does not add meaning beyond the structured data. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (persons) plus the searchable field categories (name, email, phone, custom fields). It is clearly a query tool, distinguishable from persons_get by verb, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling persons_list, which is the closest alternative.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the sibling persons_list, so an agent must infer that search is for term-based lookup while list is for unfiltered enumeration. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are named.

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