search_people

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the asynchronous workflow: immediate return with status, pending states (queued, outsideWorkingHours), the need to poll via get_workflow_result, and the consequence of retrying (duplicate queued work). This is exceptionally transparent.

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?

Though the description is longer than a simple one-liner, every sentence serves a critical purpose: defining the action, explaining the async behavior, and detailing the pending states. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the purpose, with no fluff.

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 complexity (async workflow, no output schema, nested filter object), the description covers all essential context: what happens on invocation, how to retrieve results, how to interpret pending reasons, and how to handle outsideWorkingHours. It fully prepares the agent to use the tool correctly without needing additional information.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only mentions 'various filtering criteria' generically. It does not clarify usage of filter fields or any nuances beyond what schema already states.

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 function: 'Allows you to search people applying various filtering criteria'. It names the underlying action (st.searchPeople) and the resource (people), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_companies and search_jobs by the target entity.

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 strong contextual usage guidance: it explains that the operation is async, instructs the user to call get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId and operationName, and warns against retrying the original tool while a workflow is running. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as nv_search_people or fetch_person, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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