Kooperativa: search people

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully explains that filters combine with AND logic, that results are lightweight previews, and that pagination is applied. It does not cover potential edge behavior such as empty results, sort order, or rate limits, but it discloses the most important operational traits.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states purpose and scope, the second conveys filtering behavior, return type, pagination, and routing to enrichment. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's complexity, the description covers the essential workflow: filter, paginate, retrieve previews, then enrich. It does not describe the output fields or pagination specifics, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but for a search tool with zero required parameters it is reasonably complete.

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 68%, so many parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds useful high-level semantics such as AND logic and the general filter categories, but it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (city, page, per_page, boolean flags, seniority). For a 22-parameter tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Kooperativa data lake of professional profiles'), and lists the main filter dimensions. It clearly differentiates from kooperativa_enrich_person by noting it returns previews and that full records require a follow-up call, and from kooperativa_search_companies by targeting profiles rather than companies.

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 a clear search use case: combine filters, get previews, then pass an id to kooperativa_enrich_person for full data. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use this tool versus sibling tools like kooperativa_person_colleagues or kooperativa_check_person, but the search-and-enrich workflow is clearly implied.

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