Find People

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: single match returns full card vs. compact list for multiple matches, and the has_more caveat that it only means the page is full, not an honest total. This exceeds the structured data.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, the second explains single vs. multiple results and the SMTP address relevance, and the third clarifies has_more behavior. No wasted words.

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 read-only lookup tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, result format nuances, pagination caveat, and integration points with sibling tools. The output schema handles detailed return fields, so the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 75% (limit lacks a description), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides for query, offset, and details. It indirectly references details expansion but does not explain parameter syntax or constraints further.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look someone up in the corporate address book.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like find_emails or get_calendar_events by focusing on people lookup, and even mentions how results feed into send_email and create_event.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to look up a person and obtain their SMTP address for other tools like send_email and create_event. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative people-search tools, but the context is clear enough among the given siblings.

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