tdx-people-lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'quick lookup' and searchable fields, but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list of people objects). For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information: it's a quick lookup tool for TDX people using search strings. There's no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for immediate understanding.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and 100% schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but lacks output details (no output schema provided) and behavioral context. It adequately covers the basic purpose but falls short in explaining usage scenarios or result format, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('searchText' and 'maxResults'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating the searchable fields. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional semantic context like examples or edge cases.

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: 'Quick lookup of TDX people by search string (name, email, or username).' It specifies the verb ('lookup'), resource ('TDX people'), and search criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tdx-people-get' or 'tdx-people-search,' which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'tdx-people-get' (likely for retrieving a specific person by ID) and 'tdx-people-search' (possibly more advanced search), there's no indication of when this 'lookup' is preferred, such as for quick, simple searches versus comprehensive ones.

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