Who Knows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the query intent - nothing about how a connection path is computed, depth limits, or what happens when both or neither parameter is supplied.

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?

A single tight sentence fragment with no wasted words, and the dual capability is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, which is a minor concern for this dimension.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the tool has zero required parameters and two optional ones whose interaction is ambiguous (org only, target only, both together?). The description should clarify those cases and route to sibling tools; it does neither.

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 only 50%: `target` is documented in the schema but `org` is not. The description partially compensates by implying org = organization to check and target = person to reach, and the 'and/or' wording hints both are optional and combinable, but it adds no format or matching semantics.

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 capability in question form: who you know at an org and how you're connected to a person. That is clear enough to distinguish it from a generic search, but it never names a sibling (people_graph, connect, search) or states a concrete verb+resource, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. The question phrasing implies 'use this to answer network questions,' but with siblings like people_graph and connect present, the agent is left to guess which one applies.

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