search-people

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool uses Microsoft Graph People API, is read-only, and returns specific fields. No contradictions. It adds value beyond annotations but does not mention rate limits or pagination behavior.

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, no wasted words. First sentence states core function, second sentence provides use cases and differentiation. Efficient and well-structured.

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, the description covers return fields, purpose, and differentiation. Annotations cover read-only and open-world aspects. Contextually complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters described. The description adds context that query can be 'name, email, company' and that count max is 50 (schema says max: 50). This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 'Relevance-ranked search across personal contacts, organisation directory, and recent communications via the Microsoft Graph People API (read-only)' with specific return fields. It 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?

Explicitly states ideal use cases ('who is X?', 'who do I email about Y?') and provides an explicit alternative: 'Use manage-contact action=search instead when you specifically need entries from your 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.