get_people_check_duplicate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a GET-style check operation, which implies a safe, read-only behavior. However, it does not explain matching semantics, response format, or behavior when no identifier parameters are supplied.

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 one concise sentence plus the endpoint reference, with no wasted words or filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the API path is a useful, non-redundant addition.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the duplicate check returns or whether at least one of email/phone is required. Given all parameters are optional in the schema, this could lead an agent to make an invalid or meaningless 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The extraQuery parameter is well explained in the schema with an example.

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 states a specific action ('Check whether a person exists') and names the exact endpoint it maps to, which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_person or list_people, though the name and endpoint imply a distinct duplicate-check behavior.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_person, list_people, or create_person, and no context about when duplicate checking is appropriate. It also does not mention prerequisites such as requiring an email or phone number before calling.

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