search-people

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds a valuable scoping detail (results are personalized to the signed-in user) but does not elaborate on return format, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Consistent with annotations, no contradiction.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. No filler; the fuzzy-resolution positioning earns its place.

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?

For a read-only search tool with fully documented params and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. It could have described the returned person entity (e.g., name, email) but the schema's pagination hints and the tool's name make the return type fairly obvious.

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 query, cursor, and maxItems. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('people relevant to the signed-in user', clarifying scope as colleagues/frequent contacts). It also positions the tool as the first step for fuzzy name resolution, which helps differentiate it from broader search siblings like search-users or search-m365.

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 clear context: intended as a first step for fuzzy name resolution and operates on the signed-in user's relevant people. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer fallback options.

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