search_people

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: text filters are case-insensitive prefix matches with no wildcards, dictionary filters accept numeric IDs or Polish labels, and the return includes title, unit, and profile URL. It also notes the special case of a single match. However, it omits details like pagination, empty result behavior, and rate limits, preventing a perfect score.

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 well-structured with three paragraphs: purpose, filter semantics, and return usage. It is concise but dense, with each sentence adding value. Slightly longer than minimal, but justified by the tool's complexity.

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 the high parameter count and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, filter behavior, return fields, and the relationship to sibling tools. It does not explicitly explain the 'limit' parameter's effect or behavior with no criteria, but these are minor gaps for a search tool.

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 compensates by grouping all 14 parameters into text filters and dictionary filters, listing each explicitly. It explains that text filters are prefix matches and dictionary filters accept IDs or labels, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide translations for the Polish field names.

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 tool 'Search AGH staff in the SkOs directory' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing list_filter_options for browsing filter options and get_person for contact data, making the purpose 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?

Explicitly tells users when to use alternatives: 'use list_filter_options to browse them' for dictionary filters, and 'pass that url to get_person for contact data.' It also clarifies when the full profile is included, implying you may not need get_person for single matches.

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