search-profile

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 disclosure. It mentions using DCR (Dynamic Context Retrieval) which hints at a dynamic/retrieval-based search mechanism, but it doesn't clarify what this means behaviorally—whether results are ranked, how the 'limit' affects scope, what sections get returned, or how this differs from a straightforward get-profile lookup. For a search tool that appears to overlap with several specialized getters, more behavioral detail is needed.

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 sentences, front-loads the purpose, and efficiently enumerates covered topics. No wasted words. Could arguably be slightly more complete on behavioral detail, but the current length is appropriate for what it communicates.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, 2 params fully documented, and overlaps significantly with 7 siblings including a near-duplicate search-priya-profile. Given this complexity and overlap, the description should do more to clarify the tool's unique role, return behavior, and relationship to siblings. It's adequate but leaves gaps around how DCR results differ from the getter tools and what the limit parameter actually limits.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters (query, limit) having descriptions. The description adds context about what query should contain ('what the client wants to know') and the mechanics of DCR, but the schema already documents semantics for both parameters. The description doesn't add meaningful detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: search Priya Gautam's profile using DCR. It enumerates the covered topics (education, skills, experience, projects, technologies, certifications, background), which is specific and useful. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'search-priya-profile' which seems to serve a nearly identical purpose, and siblings like get-skills/get-projects overlap in topic coverage.

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 implies usage: 'Use it for questions about her education, skills, experience, projects, technologies, certifications, or background.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives like get-profile, get-skills, or the near-duplicate search-priya-profile, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong sibling.

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