Search Notable People

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds extra behavioral context: the catalog is public, a cost of $0.01 is associated with the call, and the example slug illustrates accepted input format. This goes beyond the annotation set without contradicting it.

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: one main sentence plus a use-case sentence and a short example/cost note. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every clause adds information. 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?

Given an output schema and annotations that cover the read-only, non-destructive nature, the description covers all necessary invocation context: what to search, when to use it, an example, and the cost. The anyOf schema's q/query alias confusion is not addressed, but the schema already documents it, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that q accepts a name, occupation, or slug and provides a concrete example (albert-einstein), which the schema's 'Primary search query' does not convey. This extra semantic context justifies a 4.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Search' and names the exact resource: the public Dayze notable-people catalog. It enumerates the search dimensions (name, occupation, slug), which differentiates it from sibling tools like notable_profile, notable_pack, and generic search. It is unmistakable what this tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use when you need to find a person before fetching a pack.' This gives the agent a clear trigger condition. It does not, however, state when not to use it or name alternative search tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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