Find a person in the BnF authority file

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses valuable behavioral traits: potential duplicate records ('several rows can carry one name'), the fact that results are not ordered by relevance ('Rows come back in the order the index returned them'), and the non-biographical search limitation. These details help the agent set expectations and avoid misusing results.

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 sentence-efficient: every sentence carries meaningful information—purpose, input format, limitations, ambiguity handling, and result ordering. It front-loads the main purpose and then progressively provides decision-relevant context without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, how to use it, limitations, ambiguity, and result ordering. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 adds crucial meaning for the required 'name' parameter by explaining accepted formats ('takes a surname, a full name or both names in either order'), which goes beyond the schema's simple example. It does not address page/limit parameters, but these are standard pagination fields with defaults in the schema. The mention of birth_year, death_year, and role as output fields also helps the agent understand how to disambiguate results.

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's purpose: 'Find a person in the Bibliothèque nationale de France authority file by name, and get the identifier the other tools take.' It specifies the resource (BnF authority file) and the action (search by name), and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_works by focusing on persons rather than works.

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 practical usage guidance, such as accepting surname, full name, or both names in either order, and explains a limitation: 'It does not read biographies, so it cannot find a person from what they wrote or what they did.' It also advises how to handle ambiguous results by reading birth_year, death_year, and role, and explicitly instructs to 'show the caller the choice rather than picking one.' It lacks an explicit mention of alternative tools for non-author searches, but the context is clear enough.

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