Audit People (compact)

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is server-side, returns only compact candidate clusters, costs $0.10, and requires an API key. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: context, output, usage warning, and cost/auth are each conveyed in a single concise statement. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler.

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?

The description gives the essential context, output shape, and auth/cost details, and an output schema exists. However, because the parameters are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, the tool is not fully callable without guessing or external knowledge.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of limit, checks, or min_confidence. The output-type hints (duplicates, normalization, etc.) are loosely related to possible checks but do not map to the actual parameters, leaving the agent without meaningful parameter guidance.

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: server-side contact hygiene returning compact candidate clusters for duplicates, entity-type hints, normalization, and payment-handle collisions. It also explicitly contrasts with get_people bulk dumps, helping differentiate it from a closely related sibling.

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?

It provides a clear use context (cleanup candidate clusters) and explicitly warns against using get_people bulk dumps for cleanup. However, it does not mention other relevant siblings like score_people_duplicates or start_people_cleanup, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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