Search officers by name

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the return structure ('candidates with officer_id, name, and (where exposed) appointment count') and directing users to list_jurisdictions for per-country details. No contradictions.

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-loaded with the core action, and no redundant words. Every sentence provides value: first sentence defines purpose, second clarifies output and usage context.

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 (3 params, output schema, annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, output structure, and provides a usage hint. It references additional resources (list_jurisdictions) for completeness. Could be slightly more explicit about error or edge cases, but overall sufficient.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds useful context for the jurisdiction parameter, listing supported countries and referencing list_jurisdictions for more details, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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?

Description clearly states 'Find people holding or who held officer positions... by name' and specifies officer types (director, secretary, member, partner). It also positions the tool as an 'Entry point for person-centric investigations,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_officers which are company-centric.

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 person-centric investigations but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that get_officers should be used for officers of a known company.

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