connects_people

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by reiterating the 'visible' scope and explicitly warning that an empty result is not proof of absence. This behavioral nuance goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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?

Two short sentences carry meaningful guidance: the resource and action in the first, and an important interpretational caveat in the second. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has six optional parameters, an output schema, and an annotation set that covers safety and openness. The description clarifies the domain ('visible IE directory') and the open-world caveat, but does not cover how to use filters or pagination, nor does it mention any authentication requirements suggested by sibling tools like ie_auth_status. For a search tool with many optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. While names like 'city', 'company', 'graduation_year', and 'query' are self-explanatory to some degree, the description does not explain how filters combine, what 'query' matches, or how pagination works. With zero coverage in the schema and no compensation in the description, this is a significant gap.

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 specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('the visible IE directory'), and clearly sets it apart from the singular sibling connects_person. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the plural 'people' and the verb 'search' signal a directory lookup rather than a single-record fetch.

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 gives context about searching the visible IE directory and cautions against concluding a person is absent from an empty list. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or filter combination rules. The privacy caution is useful but does not fully replace alternative guidance.

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