enrich_person_search

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint): it discloses the cost model ('3 credits per URL returned'), pagination behavior ('Returns up to page_size results (max 100) per call'), and the presence of next_page URLs and total_result_count. This is valuable operational information not present in the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then output, cost, and pagination. Each sentence earns its place without fluff or redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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?

Despite the high parameter count (28) and no output schema, the description covers essential operational aspects: purpose, output type, cost, and pagination mechanics. However, it omits boolean search syntax and does not clarify whether at least one filter is required, which are notable gaps for a search tool with many optional filters.

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. The description adds a high-level overview of criteria categories ('name, location, education, role, company, and more') and explains pagination parameters, but it does not elaborate on boolean search syntax or how multiple criteria combine. Most parameter-level meaning is already in the schema descriptions, so the added value is minimal.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('people') with a clear scope ('by various criteria including name, location, education, role, company, and more'). It also mentions the output ('professional network URLs'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like enrich_person_lookup or enrich_employee_search.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to search for people by criteria. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the 'Search for people' phrasing is a strong indicator of its use case. Cost and pagination details further clarify usage expectations.

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