search_constituents

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the default return is a compact summary (listing fields), that giving totals are excluded, and that setting verbose:true returns the full record. These details are beyond what the schema provides and accurately represent the tool's 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 two short sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide critical usage hints. Every sentence adds meaningful information—no filler, no repetition. It is efficient and well-structured for quick scanning by an AI agent.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (compact summary fields) and distinguishes it from get_constituent. It notes the searchable fields (name, email) and the verbose option. Some minor gaps exist: pagination behavior (offset/limit) is not elaborated, and ordering is not mentioned. However, for a search tool, these are secondary; the core information is presented sufficiently.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior (compact summary) and that verbose:true yields the full record. This clarifies the distinction between default and verbose output, which the schema alone does not emphasize. The description does not add to limit/offset meaning, but the added context for verbose and the query parameter (name/email) justify a 4.

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 explicitly states 'Search LGL constituents by name or email address' and specifies the returned compact summary fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_constituent (which provides giving totals) and search_gifts (different resource), so the purpose is clearly defined and not confused with others.

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 gives direct guidance: 'Giving totals are not included — use get_constituent for those.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus the sibling get_constituent. It also mentions passing verbose:true for the full record, advising on optional behavior. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements but the alternative is clear, making it a strong 4.

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