find_person

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context by naming the underlying API (ResolveNames) and directory (Active Directory), implying it is a read-only search. It also describes the return fields, giving the agent a good understanding of behavior.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose sentence, then elaborates on usage, parameters, and return values in a logical order. No unnecessary sentences or repetition.

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 the low complexity (one required parameter, no enums, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and underlying technology. It is complete for an agent to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the single parameter 'query' as 'Name, email address, or keyword to search for,' adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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's purpose: 'Search for people in the corporate directory.' It specifies the resource (people), the verb (search), and the method (Exchange ResolveNames API against Active Directory). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on emails, meetings, and folders.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (searching for employees by name, email, or keyword). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient and no exclusion is needed given the sibling tools are distinct.

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