Search people

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral trait—returning only the top 15 matches with core attributes—but it omits context such as required authentication, case sensitivity, partial matching, or what 'core attributes' includes. This is a minimum viable disclosure for a search 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with a parenthetical for constraints. Every word adds value and there is no repetition of schema 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and result limits. The main gap is lack of authentication context, especially with a set-access-token sibling tool, but the absence of an output schema is acceptable since the parenthetical describes the shape.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the single parameter 'term' as a name or UPN, adding essential meaning not present in the input schema. It could go further by explaining matching behavior, but the basic semantic is covered.

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 states a specific action ('Search Entra ID users by name or UPN') and a clear resource scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-photo or get-manager. The result constraint ('top 15 matches with core attributes') further clarifies what the tool does.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when searching Entra ID users by name or UPN. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of the 'explicit when/when-not' bar.

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