pipedrive_persons_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention pagination (though cursor and limit params exist), ordering, response structure, case sensitivity, or any limitations. The description only states what the tool searches by.

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 very concise (9 words), but it is under-specified given the tool's 7 parameters. While front-loaded with key info, it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools that require differentiation, the description is incomplete. Missing information about pagination, field format, and response structure leaves the agent underinformed.

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 only 14% (only 'term' has a description). The description adds meaning for the search term but does not explain the other six parameters ('fields', 'exact_match', 'organization_id', 'cursor', 'limit', 'include_fields'), leaving them semantically ambiguous.

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 action (search) and resource (persons) and specifies the searchable fields (name, email, phone, custom fields). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling search tools for other entities (e.g., deals, organizations).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like 'pipedrive_persons_list' or 'pipedrive_persons_get'. It does not mention prerequisites, when to choose search over list/list, or contrast with other search tools.

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