search_modules_people

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

The description labels the endpoint as an 'undocumented session endpoint', alerting users that it may be unstable or internal, which adds important transparency beyond the schema. Although no annotations are present, this disclosure partly compensates by revealing the tool's nature.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information, making it highly efficient.

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 exists and parameter coverage is complete, the description covers basic functionality. However, it lacks information about authorization, pagination behavior, or potential limitations, which would be valuable for a tool with no annotations.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description reinforces them by listing 'name, title, or department', which matches the query parameter's description but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 people by name, title, or department'. The tool name 'search_modules_people' paired with this description distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_modules_channels or search_modules_dms. 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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_modules_channels or search_all. It only describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and the fields listed. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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