apollo_search_people

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

No annotations are provided, and the description omits behavioral traits such as pagination limits, rate limits, or data freshness. The input schema mentions per_page max 100, but the description does not highlight any behavioral constraints or side effects.

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, concise and direct. It could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose, but it efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and high parameter coverage, the description minimally covers the tool's functionality. However, without annotations, behavioral expectations are missing, making it adequate but not comprehensive for a complex search tool.

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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond stating 'advanced filtering options', so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search' and resource 'people in Apollo', and mentions advanced filtering options. It distinguishes from sibling tools like apollo_get_person (single person retrieval) and apollo_enrich_person (enrichment) by emphasizing search with filters.

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 implies use when searching for people with filters but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like apollo_search_contacts or apollo_get_person. No guidance on when not to use is provided.

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