Search CDP Guest Profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does add useful behavior: pagination support and an explicit warning that the endpoint is unverified and should be confirmed with curl/Postman. However, it omits other behavioral context such as authentication requirements, error behavior, and what happens when no parameters are supplied.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the important caveat placed at the end. Nothing is wasted, and the unverified note earns its place without bloating the description.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return shape, auth, and edge behavior, but it only covers pagination and the verification caveat. Notably, all three parameters are optional yet the description never clarifies what an empty call would return, which is a real completeness gap for an unverified endpoint.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents email, limit, and offset, including formats, bounds, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies — neither compensating nor detracting.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Searches for guest profiles by email') and adds pagination, so an agent understands the core operation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling guest_get or guest_upsert, but 'search by email' is a meaningfully distinct operation among the guest-family tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this over guest_get, when not to use it, or what prerequisites exist. The use case is only implied by the verb 'searches'; the unverified-endpoint note is a caution, not a selection directive.

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