aula_find_people

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication needs, read-only nature, search behavior (e.g., partial matching, case sensitivity), or return value characteristics. It only states the subject and scope.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Search', and contains no waste. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Even for a simple two-parameter tool, the description omits details about return format, search behavior, and operational constraints. With no output schema and no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand what happens upon invocation.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions for both 'name' and 'role'. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search for people'), specifies the resource ('people connected to your school on Aula'), and lists relevant categories (parents, children, teachers, employees). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that handle posts, messages, calendar, and auth.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites are mentioned. The description merely states the tool's function; an agent must infer usage from sibling tool names alone.

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