search_persons

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. Discloses searched fields and parameters but omits behavior on case sensitivity, partial matching, pagination beyond limit, sorting, or empty term handling. Lacks detail for reliable agent use.

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?

Concise with front-loaded purpose. Includes structured Args and Examples. Could streamline the Args section since it repeats schema, but overall efficient.

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?

Provides basic outline of functionality and return type ('JSON array of matching persons'). With output schema present, heavy detail on return structure is not critical, but lacks specifics like field names or error handling. Adequate for a simple search tool.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema by describing 'term' as search term and 'limit' as max results with default 100. However, schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain expected formats or constraints (e.g., term length). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Clearly states it performs full-text search on persons/contacts across specified fields (names, emails, etc.). Examples reinforce purpose. Could explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like 'search_all' or 'search_organizations'.

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?

Does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_all' or 'search_organizations'. No explicit when-not or context for selecting this tool.

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