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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context that results are people who can receive e-signature documents, and that search is by name or email. It doesn't disclose details like pagination, result limits, or whether archived people are excluded by default, but the schema covers include_archived. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the search capability is stated concisely. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list/search tool with a full output schema and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description is largely complete. It could explicitly mention that archived people are excluded by default, but the schema already states that. The e-signature context adds useful framing. Minor gap: no mention of result ordering or pagination, but not critical for this tool type.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (name, email, include_archived) with their meanings. The description adds the high-level purpose (finding e-signature recipients) but doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: finding people in the organization who can be sent documents for electronic signature, with search by name or email. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-groups-tool or get-person-tool, and the context of e-signature recipients adds specific value.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to find people to send documents for signature. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the e-signature context and search-by-name/email guidance provide clear usage context. Sibling tools like get-person-tool or create-person-tool are implicitly different.

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