Search People Summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns minimal person data and lists the fields, making the read-only nature of a search implicit. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified or mention any side effects, which would have earned a 5.

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 sentences, with the core purpose stated first and supporting detail second. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it highly efficient for an agent 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?

The description is self-contained: it states the return fields, the use case, and the difference from full-detail search. It does not mention pagination, errors, or explicit tool selection, but the simplicity of the operation and the provided schema make it sufficient for correct use.

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 fully describes both parameters ('query' and 'max_results'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond restating the purpose, though it does clarify the return format.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches for people and returns lightweight summaries, explicitly contrasting with 'full details' to distinguish it from the sibling search_people. The verb 'Search' and resource 'people' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides an explicit usage condition: 'Ideal when you need to search many people but don't need comprehensive information.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives, and the contrast with 'full details' reinforces the selection logic.

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