people_profile_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching but doesn't describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior beyond 'pageSize', rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with large result sets. The example shows a request format but lacks operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The example request is relevant but could be more concise. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the example takes up space without adding significant guidance.

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 complexity of a search tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, and behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. The example helps but doesn't compensate for the missing contextual details needed for effective tool use.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds an example that illustrates usage but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The example clarifies the structure of 'filters' as an object, but this is implied by the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for people profiles in the company.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('people profiles'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'chat' and 'company_search' by focusing on people profiles rather than chat or company data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar search tools beyond the resource scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'company_search' or explain scenarios where one might be preferred over the other. The example request is helpful for syntax but doesn't offer usage context or exclusions.

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