swapi_search_people

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description's only added context is that lookup is name-based, with no mention of result caps, matching semantics, or what a search returns when nothing matches. Some value, but thin for a remote search endpoint.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is slightly under-specified rather than padded, but nothing in it needs cutting.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves open matching behavior (exact vs substring) and whether results are limited. Those matter for an open-world search endpoint and are not addressed.

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 single parameter is already documented with an example in the schema, so the baseline applies. The phrase 'by name' confirms the query targets the character name field, which is a marginal addition over the schema example.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Star Wars characters) plus the search field (name). An agent can tell it apart from swapi_get_person by the search-vs-fetch pattern, though the description never names that sibling or states the distinction explicitly.

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?

'by name' hints at the input, but there is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over swapi_get_person when an ID is already known, or whether partial matches are supported. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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