search_persons

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states searchable fields but does not disclose whether matching is fuzzy or exact, case sensitivity, pagination behavior, or what happens with no results. This leaves critical behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is concise at one sentence, which is appropriate for a simple tool. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or parameter details) and sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters with zero schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, sorting, or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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 must compensate. It implies the 'term' parameter matches name, email, or phone, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide syntax examples. Only one of two parameters is partially explained.

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 clearly states the action 'Search' and the resource 'persons', and specifies the searchable fields (name, email, or phone). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_deals or search_organizations, but it does not explicitly differentiate from get_person which retrieves by ID.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., get_person for exact ID lookup, or search_organizations for organizations). The agent receives no context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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