apollo_search_people

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the ability to filter but does not disclose behaviors such as pagination (though parameters include page and per_page), rate limits, authentication requirements, or edge cases like empty results. It covers basic functionality but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more efficient by removing 'for people/prospects' (redundant with title) and focusing on the unique value. It earns its place but is somewhat generic.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe return values, pagination behavior, or how results are structured. For a search tool with many filters, more context is needed to aid correct invocation, such as typical use cases or result schema hints.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'etc.' hinting at additional filters but does not provide significant new meaning beyond what the schema already describes (keywords, titles, locations, organization_ids, pagination). It fails to elaborate on parameter syntax or constraints 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's purpose: 'Search for people/prospects in Apollo's B2B database.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('people/prospects'), and the mention of filtering distinguishes it from sibling tools like apollo_enrich_person (which enriches existing data) and apollo_search_organizations (which searches for companies).

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?

The description indicates usage context ('Filter by job titles, locations, companies, etc.') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. The implied usage is when needing to find prospects, but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.

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