search_officers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description shoulders the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, result ordering, whether it returns full officer details or summaries, or any side effects. For a search tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 very concise (one sentence), which is good. However, it lacks structure – no breakdown of what the tool does in more detail. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but for a tool with three parameters and search behavior, a slightly longer description detailing pagination or result format would be more structured without being verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., list of officer names, full profiles, total count). Given the presence of siblings like get_officers and get_officer_appointments_list, the agent needs to know the scope and format of results to decide correctly. The description is incomplete for a search tool with multiple parameters and no output guidance.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. The schema's parameter descriptions are clear (officer name for query, pagination fields). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade but also does not enhance semantic understanding.

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 'Search for company officers' clearly states the action (search) and the resource (company officers). It distinguishes from siblings like get_officers (which retrieves officers for a specific company) and advanced_company_search (which searches companies). The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. Siblings include many officer-related tools (get_officers, get_officer_appointment, etc.), but the description does not explain when a general search is appropriate versus using a more specific retrieval endpoint. There are no 'when not to use' or 'see also' hints.

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