search_people

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only says 'list/filter.' It does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, read-only nature, or what the response contains. The filter semantics are in the schema, but broader behavioral context is missing.

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 with no fluff and is front-loaded with the core action. It is concise, though perhaps too terse to fully support a 5-parameter tool with no other context.

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 five parameters, nested filter objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent lacks guidance on expected result shape, pagination defaults, or how this relates to sibling search tools.

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%, and the schema itself documents limit, offset, search, filters, and ordering with detailed examples. The description adds little beyond the schema, but because coverage is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists/filters people and identifies the relevant roles (founders, directors, key executives). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_investors or get_person, so it misses the top score for direct sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_person, search_investors, or other search_* tools. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or trade-offs.

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