search_persons

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination behavior (defaults and max) and the return format (JSON with specific fields), which is helpful. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'search' implies 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value, though the category enum list is somewhat lengthy but necessary for completeness. It could be slightly more concise in the opening statement.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description does a good job. It explains parameters thoroughly and mentions the return format, though it doesn't fully describe behavioral aspects like error handling. The output schema existence reduces the need to detail return values, but more behavioral context would help.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides complete documentation for all 4 parameters: name (full/partial search), category (with explicit enum values), page (default), and per_page (default and max). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 specific action ('Search') and target resource ('Epstein files for persons of interest'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_documents or search_flights that search different data types. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_person (for retrieving a specific person) or cross_search (purpose unknown). The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate relative to other available tools.

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