Find a person

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses output fields (canonical name, p:handle, message count, last-contact time) and the scanning behavior ('most-talked-to first' when query omitted). It does not mention any destructive actions, which is appropriate. A slight improvement would be to confirm the tool is read-only.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, usage guidelines, and extra behavior. No redundancy. Efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Without annotations or output schema, the description covers input/output behavior but fails to explain the 'n' parameter. Since 'n' defaults to 8 and caps at 25, its role (number of results?) is not fully clarified. This gap reduces completeness.

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% and descriptions in schema are decent. The tool description adds value by explaining the behavior of omitting query and the ordering. However, the 'n' parameter is not mentioned in the description, which could be overlooked.

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 resolves name fragments to canonical names and p:handles, with contact stats. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly advising when to use search/read_messages instead.

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 when to use (ambiguous name, need contact stats) and when not to (ordinary filtering, use search/read_messages). Provides alternative tools.

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