search_peoplecode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool searches and returns locations but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, permissions, or side effects. This is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with a clear main sentence followed by structured args and returns. Every line adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose, inputs, and output type. It is complete enough for a basic search tool, though it could benefit from example usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters (search_term and search_in), including possible values. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action (search) and resource (PeopleCode programs). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling search tools like search_employees or search_records, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_peoplecode.

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 guidance through the Args section, explaining the search_in parameter options. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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