Search people

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds context by stating the required scope and explicitly labeling it 'READ-ONLY'. This goes beyond annotations and is consistent.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence explains functionality and criteria. Second sentence covers usage rule, required scope, and read-only nature. Every sentence adds essential 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?

The description lacks details about the return format (e.g., what fields are returned, if pagination exists). Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the output structure. However, the tool is simple and the openWorldHint suggests flexibility, so it is functional but not fully complete.

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 100% and each parameter has a description. The description adds the constraint that at least one criterion must be supplied, which is not enforced in the schema (no required parameters). This additional guidance is valuable beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'people' with specific search criteria (name, work email, national number). It also notes that at least one criterion must be supplied, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'officient_list_people' (list all) and 'officient_get_person' (by ID).

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Supply at least one criterion' and states the required scope. It implies when to use this tool versus list/get tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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