Find people

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: matching is fuzzy and accent-insensitive, and there is a secondary code path that falls back to a direct account lookup for non-member exact handles. It stops short of describing result ordering or how the two code paths differ in output.

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, zero filler, and the primary matching semantics are front-loaded ahead of the edge-case fallback. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 search tool with no output schema, an agent still cannot tell what comes back — account objects, bare handles, or ranked matches — nor what the default `limit` is or how ambiguous matches are ordered. The two code paths (fuzzy member search vs. direct account lookup) presumably return different shapes, and that is undisclosed.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden; it explains `query` well (partial name or handle, fuzzy, accent-insensitive). It says nothing at all about `limit`, which is bounded 1–50 in the schema with no documented default, so half the parameters remain uninterpreted.

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 names a specific verb and resource (find archive members) plus the matching strategy (partial name or handle, fuzzy, accent-insensitive), which is far more informative than the title 'Find people'. It implies a distinction from exact-lookup siblings like ca_account via the fallback clause, but never names ca_account or ca_members outright, so the boundary stays inferential.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when you have a partial name or handle and want a member. The fallback sentence does useful routing work by signaling that exact handles of non-members are still resolved. However, there is no explicit 'use X instead when…' guidance against the many sibling lookup tools (ca_account, ca_me, ca_members).

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