find_people

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-style lookup and describes the computed outputs, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential limitations such as pagination, inclusion of zero-load employees, or any operational constraints.

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 compact and well-structured: action, filter behavior, returned fields, and example use cases. Each sentence carries meaningful information without redundancy or filler.

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 that there are no required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the main operational needs. The only notable gap is that it does not explain how to distinguish this tool from its siblings when they overlap in subject matter.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a useful semantic note that filters are optional and combine additively, but it does not significantly extend the already-complete parameter documentation.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: find employees and view their load across projects. It specifies the returned fields (role, grade, current load, free capacity), making the tool's purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like utilization_summary or find_projects.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: 'who is free', 'who is on a project', 'is there capacity for a new task'. It also states that filters are optional and additive. It does not mention when to prefer or avoid sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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