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 of disclosing side effects, permissions, or limitations. It only says 'search', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention any required auth or rate limits. This lack of explicit transparency is a gap.

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 and well-structured. It states the purpose in one sentence and then lists the supported search fields in a clean bullet list. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 that an output schema is indicated as present (though not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers what the tool does and the main input parameters. However, it lacks explicit usage context or constraints (e.g., whether partial matches are supported, or if certain fields require combinations), but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 already provides basic descriptions for 'query' and 'max_results'. The description adds valuable meaning by enumerating what the query can contain (name, email, uid, employee ID, department), which enriches the understanding of the query parameter beyond the schema's generic text. This justifies a score above the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Search for people') and the resource ('corporate directory'), and lists specific searchable fields (name, email, uid, employee ID, department). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_groups or find_locations by resource type.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_people_summary or get_person_details. It only lists search criteria, which informs the query parameter but not the choice between related tools. No 'use this when' or 'instead of that' guidance is given.

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