Find people in Populi

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description then adds match semantics, the constraint that at least one criterion is required, and what the response contains (people list plus report_data with primary email/phone). Useful value beyond structured fields, though result ordering and pagination behavior are not mentioned.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and match semantics, then the return shape, then the pointer for deeper data. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 no output schema, the description usefully summarizes return values (ids, names, status, report_data block) and explains the escalation path for full contact records. Nearly complete; ordering/truncation behavior of results is the only noticeable gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3; the description goes further by stating the exact-vs-contains matching behavior per field and adding an invocation rule ('Needs at least one criterion') that no schema constraint expresses, since required is empty. limit is left to the schema, which documents it fully.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up people') plus the exact searchable criteria (email, first/last name). This is clearly a specialized people-search tool, distinguishable from generic siblings like populi_get or populi_search_api without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the precondition 'Needs at least one criterion' and the matching semantics (email exact, names contains), and points to the alternative route ('/people/{id}' with expand) for full contact records. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the routing to the alternative covers the main decision.

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