search_people

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool is a search across multiple fields (a read/search operation implying non-destructive behavior), but provides no detail on result format, pagination, limit semantics, relevance ranking, or whether the query matches substring vs exact. For a search tool, ordering and match semantics are materially useful.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and scope, with zero wasted words. It is adequately concise for a search tool, though it could not be considered exceptionally well-structured since all information is packed into one clause with no additional organizational structure.

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?

The tool has an output schema (which explains return values, reducing description burden) and only 2 simple parameters. The description covers query semantics reasonably. However, it lacks guidance on match behavior, limit semantics, and result ordering, which for a search tool are relevant completeness gaps. Given its relative simplicity, it is minimally complete but not rich.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by spelling out what the query can match against (name, organization, role, city, etc.), adding real meaning to the query parameter. However, it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter's behavior beyond what the schema's default of 20 implies, and provides no syntax/format hints for composing queries (e.g., free-text vs structured).

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 identifies the verb (search) and resource (people) and enumerates the search dimensions (name, organization, role, city, identifier, summary, fact). It signals this is a discovery/search operation distinct from targeted lookups like get_person. Lacks strong sibling differentiation (notably search_people vs get_person could be confused), but the enumerated search fields provide useful scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The sibling set includes get_person (likely a targeted lookup by ID), read_query, and write_query, but the description never clarifies the distinction. An agent might not know whether to use search_people or read_query for people queries, or when search_people is preferred over a direct get_person fetch.

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