Search Person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing. It does not state that multiple matches may be returned, whether matching is fuzzy or exact, how aliases resolve, or anything about authentication or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool that needs routing guidance.

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?

With a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description needn't explain return values, and it identifies the resource adequately. But for a search tool sitting next to get_person and two birthday tools, the absence of any disambiguation or matching-behavior context leaves a real gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (name, limit) are already documented, including aliases and the default limit of 20. The description's 'by name or alias' merely restates the schema and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (person) and even enumerates the entity types it covers (celebrity, historical figure, anime/game character), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_person, which appears to be the single-result counterpart.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. The description does not say when to prefer this over get_person or how it relates to the birthday siblings, leaving the agent to infer that 'search' means fuzzy/multi-match lookup rather than exact retrieval.

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