connects_people

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by emphasizing privacy and explicitly warning that an empty list is not proof of absence, which reinforces the open-world nature and informs interpretation of results.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the core action and then add a critical interpretive caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundant 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?

With six optional parameters, no schema parameter descriptions, and many sibling tools, the description leaves important gaps: no guidance on how to filter, no mention of pagination behavior, and no routing to connects_person for retrieving an individual. The output schema helps with return values, but overall the description is incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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%, so the description carries the burden for parameter understanding, but it mentions no parameters at all. The parameter names and types are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify query semantics, how filters combine, or whether 'query' searches name/email/etc.

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 states a specific action ('Search the visible IE directory') and the resource is clear enough given the tool name 'connects_people'. It suggests a people-directory search and is distinguishable from singular siblings like connects_person, though it does not explicitly say 'people'.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connects_person or other connects_* tools. The description implies a directory search but does not state exclusions or conditions for choosing a sibling.

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