search_people

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions no side effects, authorization, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. The search is likely safe and idempotent, but not explicitly disclosed.

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, making it concise, but it omits important details. It is front-loaded with action and resource, but arguably too terse for full usability.

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 but no parameter descriptions, and given the tool's complexity (3 params, search functionality), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain result format, search scope, or ordering, making it insufficient for confident agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify parameter meaning. It hints that 'query' is a name, but gives no examples, no details on 'limit' or 'account_id', nor whether the search is exact or fuzzy.

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 by name') and the outcome ('find their email addresses'), identifying the resource and purpose. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'search_messages' as it is the only people search tool.

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 implies use when needing to find email addresses of people by name, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor compares to alternatives. The context is clear but minimal.

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