Search people

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the exact return fields, the closeness scale (0-3), and the caveat that records may be in Turkish — all things an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then returns, then next-step routing. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields and the closeness scale, plus the Turkish-language caveat and follow-up tool routing. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already defines 'sorgu'. The description lists the match dimensions (name, organization, role, field, tag), which slightly extends the schema's wording by adding 'field', but largely restates it — 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the user's Kut network') and enumerates the searchable dimensions (name, organization, role, field, tag). It also implicitly separates itself from the detail siblings by naming kisi_karti and brifing as the next step rather than as search tools.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward: 'Call kisi_karti or brifing next for details,' which tells the agent this is the entry-point lookup and those are the detail tools. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. vs. bu_hafta or son_gorusmeler), so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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