Find people

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description still adds real behavioral content: the at-least-one-input rule, that results mirror get_person's shape, and the non-obvious fact that a match on an email/number confirms that detail exists on the account even when not returned. Missing are auth requirements and any rate-limit expectations for an openWorld endpoint.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the searchable fields and the required-input rule, then result behavior, then the caveat. Slightly dense in the final sentence but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description steps in to describe return contents ('names by default, contact details only with include_contact_details') and the reporting behavior when max_results truncates. Coverage is solid for a 7-parameter read tool, though the practical note about what to do with a confirmed-but-not-returned detail is left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by supplying the cross-field constraint that at least one search field is required — a rule the schema does not encode (required is empty). It also restates the contact-detail gating behavior of include_contact_details in plain terms.

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 and resource ('search people by surname, postcode, email...') and pins it to the exact API endpoint GET /api/people/findbydetails. Clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_person, which it references as a comparison point for result shape.

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?

Gives a hard precondition ('at least one is required') and implicitly frames this as the lookup-by-detail path versus get_person. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer get_person or how to follow up once a match is found, so no exclusions are spelled out.

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