Normalize People Apply

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds cost and API-key requirements, but it does not describe what 'applying' actually changes or whether the operation is reversible. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

One sentence front-loads the core operation and then adds cost and authentication in a compact parenthetical. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed, but the tool has three required parameters and only one is semantically clarified. The missing meaning of candidate_hash and request_id leaves an agent without enough information to confidently construct a correct call.

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 only 25%, and the description only clarifies preview_id ('by preview_id'). The required candidate_hash and request_id parameters remain unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Apply'), a specific object ('normalize_people_preview'), and a specific lookup key ('by preview_id'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling preview tool and tells an agent exactly which operation is being performed.

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?

'By preview_id' implies the prerequisite of an existing preview, so the basic usage context is present. However, the description never explicitly names normalize_people_preview as the way to create that preview, nor does it say when not to use this tool.

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