Kooperativa: check person exists

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the low-cost read-only nature, explicitly says it does not fetch the full record, and discloses the success payload (matched id, full_name, fetched_at) and the failure case (404 if not indexed). It could add more detail about rate limits or error behavior beyond 404, but for a check-existence tool this is strong disclosure.

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?

Three sentences carry substantial information: the operational behavior, the return/error semantics, and the use case. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 there is no output schema, the description does well by specifying the return fields and the 404 case. The main gap is that all three parameters are optional with no stated requirement that one must be provided, and there is no note on which identifier takes precedence. But for a lightweight existence check, the description covers the essential operational context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by framing the parameters as alternative ways to identify a profile ('given profile'), but it does not explicitly say that exactly one of the three identifiers is expected. Since the schema requires none of them, the description could be clearer on the selection logic. Still, the existence-check context plus full schema coverage makes the parameters understandable.

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 specific verb ('check'), resource ('whether Kooperativa already holds a given profile'), and the key behavioral distinction: it is cheap and does not fetch the full record. It also names the sibling tool enrich_person, which helps disambiguate it from related operations.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this to filter a list before calling enrich_person on each one.' This is a clear usage directive, and the mention of enrich_person as the next step provides an alternative/complementary tool context. It also communicates an important non-goal: it does not fetch the full record.

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