search_people

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description adds genuinely non-obvious output behavior — probably-living and private records come back as redacted id-only stubs unless include_private is set. That is exactly the kind of consequence an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose and filter scope first, then the bulk-output caveat, then the routing hint. Every sentence carries load and the most important constraint (redaction) is front and center after the purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return shape (redacted stubs vs full records) and the routing alternative. Nothing essential for calling this tool correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what include_private actually unlocks (full records vs redacted stubs) and framing name/birth-year as the search axes. It clarifies consequence, not just type.

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?

States a specific verb (search) plus resource (people) and the two filter axes: name substring and optional birth-year range. It also contrasts itself with get_person, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get_person when a specific person's detail is needed, implying this tool is for bulk/name-driven lookup. That is a clear selection rule, though it addresses only the nearest sibling and gives no explicit exclusion for the other query tools.

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