who_knows

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

The description discloses that it aggregates participant/author metadata from top search documents, which provides some transparency about its internal behavior. However, it doesn't mention side effects, read-only nature, or any potential destructive actions (though none are expected).

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 concise and to the point with two sentences, but it lacks a structured format (e.g., bullet points, examples) and could be more organized for clarity.

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 description lacks crucial context: it doesn't specify the output shape, what 'demonstrated activity' entails, how 'limit' affects results, or any error/edge cases. Given the tool's purpose, this is incomplete for a user to fully understand its behavior.

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?

The description only implicitly references 'topic' through the phrase 'on a topic', but does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. The schema provides no additional description, so the meaning of 'limit' remains unclear.

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 uses a specific verb ('find') and a resource ('people with demonstrated activity'), and implies it is distinct from general search by focusing on people. However, it doesn't explicitly state the output format (e.g., names, IDs), leaving some ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling search tools. The intended use case is only implicit from the name and description, which is insufficient for clear selection.

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