搜索人物画像

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a 'lightweight list' and does fuzzy matching, which is useful but doesn't detail pagination, match quality, or ordering behavior.

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 dense sentences, no waste. Front-loaded with the core purpose and then usage guidance. Could be slightly more structured but efficiently communicates both what and when.

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 an output schema present and readOnly annotation covering safety, the description covers the key elements: purpose, search fields, return type (lightweight list), and when to use. The tool is a simple search, so completeness is adequate for its complexity.

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 only 50% (limit documented with min/max/default, query documented as text). The description enriches the query parameter by explaining it accepts name, alias, summary, or facts content — adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic '姓名、别名或任意关键词'. The limit parameter is well-covered by 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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: fuzzy search of profiles by name, alias, summary, or recorded facts, returning lightweight list. Differentiates from siblings by specifying it's a pre-write lookup tool (avoid duplicate creation).

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?

Explicit usage context: call before recording or querying someone's info to confirm existing profile and avoid duplicate creation. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies the alternative is to proceed with create_profile if no match.

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