search_persons

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds two things they don't cover: the authorization requirement ('Requires the persons right') and the fact that only ids come back, not full person records. The closing 'Read-only' merely restates readOnlyHint=true, which is minor redundancy rather than contradiction.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return value and the prerequisite — no padding. Minor waste in the internal API name 'wbservicesbasic.personenSuche' and in 'Read-only', which duplicates the annotations.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape (ids), and authorization, which is most of what is needed. The critical gap is query semantics — what the string is matched against and how matching works — which leaves the agent guessing at invocation.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden of explaining it — but 'query' is never mentioned. The agent gets no idea whether it matches names, emails, partial strings, or what the 2-80 character constraint implies about matching behavior.

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+resource ('Search people') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_person by noting it 'Returns ids for get_person', i.e. this is the lookup step, not the detail step. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'Returns ids for get_person' effectively prescribes the two-step flow (search first, then fetch details), and 'Requires the persons right' gives a prerequisite an agent must check. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or what happens with zero/many matches, so no explicit exclusions.

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