Search People

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return format ('Returns a list of matches, each with id, name, primary email, company_name, and title') and default behavior ('If no filters are given it returns the most recent people'). This is sufficient for a search tool with no destructive side effects.

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 concise with three sentences, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes value.

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 no output schema, the description explains return fields adequately. It covers default behavior and the purpose of all parameters implicitly. Could note the default page_size (10) but schema handles that. Overall, it is complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it notes 'full or partial name' and 'exact email' but does not elaborate further. The page_size parameter is fully described in the 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 tool's purpose: 'Find people (contacts) in Copper by name and/or email address.' It specifies the resource (people) and the method (search), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_companies and search_opportunities.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'Use this to look up a contact before logging an activity or creating a task against them.' It implies when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the sibling tools list provides some differentiation.

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