scout_person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'PRO tier only,' which hints at access restrictions, but does not cover other important traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool that fetches intelligence data, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The sentences are efficient, with no wasted words, and it includes key details like the PRO tier restriction and return values. However, the list of return items could be slightly more structured for better readability.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the purpose, access restriction, and return values. With an output schema present, it does not need to explain return values in detail, and the schema handles parameters well. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context, but overall, it provides a reasonably complete overview for an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'company'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool focuses on 'public figures,' but does not provide additional context like format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Get intelligence on a public figure.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('intelligence on a public figure'), making it understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scout_company' or 'scout_batch,' which reduces clarity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 some usage context by stating 'PRO tier only,' indicating a prerequisite or restriction. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scout_company' or 'scout_batch,' and does not mention any exclusions or specific scenarios for its use, leaving room for ambiguity.

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