search_personnel

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses real-time location inclusion with 30s cache and behavior for numeric keyword matching. This adds valuable behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 structured with an icon, summary, bullet-pointed parameters, return format, and a tip. Every sentence is informative with no redundant text, achieving high density in a concise format.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists return fields (name, employee ID, department, phone, bound tags, real-time location). It covers purpose, all parameters with defaults, matching logic, and cache behavior. Missing error cases are minor given the simplicity of the tool.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds extra semantics: keyword matches name/employee ID/department, numeric keyword triggers exact employee ID match; departmentId limits to department; limit sets max returns. This enriches understanding beyond the schema itself.

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 '搜索人员' (search personnel) with specific matching criteria: name, employee ID, or department. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_personnel' which likely lists all without search, and 'get_personnel_location' which is location-specific.

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 usage hints: when keyword is a pure number, it prioritizes exact employee ID match; results include real-time location with 30s cache. It does not explicitly compare with alternative tools, but the search intent is clear and context is given for using filters.

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