find_people

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states it 'looks up' info, implying a read operation, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authorization requirements, or data sensitivity. Minimal value beyond the parameter list.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the key term 'skip trace / people finder' and then succinctly lists the search fields. No wasted words, every part earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (multiple search parameters, optional max_results) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return format, pagination, or result structure. It could be more complete.

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 each parameter described. The description lists the parameter categories ('name, email, phone, or address') but adds no extra meaning, format details, or usage tips beyond what is already in the schema. 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 the tool is a 'skip trace / people finder' for looking up personal info by various fields. While it effectively communicates the core purpose, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like find_emails or find_mobiles, which could be seen as sub-tools.

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 for finding people's personal info but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., find_emails) or what not to use it for. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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