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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing default filtering (active users only unless include_inactive), the rationale for that default, and a real caveat that platform/integration accounts may appear as 'people'.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the name-to-id constraint before any caveats. It is dense and slightly long, but each sentence (default filter, deactivation semantics, platform users) carries distinct actionable information rather than padding.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (ids and people), the default filtering behavior, the sequencing dependency on list_crm_connections, and how the output is consumed downstream. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains why include_inactive matters (deactivated users can still own records) and reinforces connection_id's dependency on list_crm_connections. That is more than the schema's terse flag description provides.

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?

States the resource precisely ('the people in the connected CRM') and immediately names the distinguishing output ('the id every owner field carries'). It is unmistakable against siblings like list_crm_connections or list_filterable_fields because it frames itself as the name-to-id resolution step.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO TURN A NAME INTO AN ID', and routes to a concrete consumer ('Use the id as the value when setting owner_id through create_mass_update_run'). It also states the read-owner use case and the condition for include_inactive, leaving nothing to inference.

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