search-people

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

Description states read-only nature and uses Microsoft Graph People API, adding context beyond annotations (which already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint). No mention of rate limits or pagination, but adequate for a read-only search tool.

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 sentences with no filler. First sentence states purpose and API, second describes output and ideal use, third gives alternative. Well 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 no output schema, description lists returned fields (displayName, emailAddresses, companyName, jobTitle, relevance metadata) which is sufficient. Annotations and sibling tools provide additional context. Minor omission: no mention of authentication or rate limits.

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% with descriptions for both parameters (query, count). The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool performs relevance-ranked search across multiple data sources (personal contacts, organisation directory, recent communications). It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'people', and distinguishes from sibling tool 'manage-contact' with action=search.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use ('who is X?', 'who do I email about Y?') and when to use alternative ('Use manage-contact action=search for personal contact store only').

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