Kooperativa: similar people

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior (returns similar people, excluding the input person) and the required input. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe pagination behavior, or mention output structure.

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 concise, purposeful sentences front-load the core purpose, then add use cases and the key requirement. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 lookup-style tool, the description provides enough to select and call it: purpose, similarity criteria, use cases, and the required profile id. Pagination defaults are in the schema, and the read-only nature is implied by 'Find.' Minor gaps remain around output format and auth details, but they are not critical for invocation.

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 only 33%: only 'id' is described, and the description merely repeats that the profile id is required. The pagination parameters (page, per_page) are undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find people similar to a given person' with explicit criteria (same seniority, industry, and country) and an exclusion rule ('excluding themselves'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_people, person_colleagues, and check_person.

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 gives concrete use cases ('lookalike audiences or finding alternative contacts at competing companies') and states the prerequisite ('Requires the Kooperativa profile id'). It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for routing.

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