search_officers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions searching by name but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether results are ordered. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 short sentence, which is concise but functional. It could be expanded to include more detail without becoming overly verbose. It adequately conveys the core purpose but nothing more.

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?

Given that there is an output schema and the tool has 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention what the response contains (e.g., a list of officers with details), pagination, or that it's a read-only operation. The description leaves too many gaps for an agent to use effectively.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only addresses the 'q' parameter (search by name), but does not explain 'start_index' or 'items_per_page'. It adds marginal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 searches for company officers by name, specifying the resource (officers) and action (search). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_companies (searches for companies) and list_company_officers (lists officers for a specific company). However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., across all companies).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this tool searches across all companies, while list_company_officers is for a specific company. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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