Search People

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the purpose, but it doesn't contradict annotations. Given the read-only nature, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 two short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides a practical usage context, making it highly 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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema. The description covers purpose and usage, while annotations cover safety and output schema covers return values, so it is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (query as name, limit with range and default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 'Search for people by name', which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes this tool from sibling search tools like search_groups or search_pages by focusing on people.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful to find a person before messaging them (pair with get_conversations / send_message)'. This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative search tools.

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