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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, and the description adds context they cannot: a required permission (members.manage, including on read-only connections) and a provenance/prompt-injection warning that returned values contain public-authored text and must be treated as data, not instructions.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core search behavior, then inclusions/exclusions, then permissions, then the safety note. Every sentence carries information; only the injection warning is slightly verbose but justified.

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?

No output schema, and the description does hint at result content (public-written text, patrons without email). Pagination is left to the schema's detailed cursor definition, so the description is nearly complete for a 6-parameter list tool.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate and it does so only partly: it explains that query is 'literal name/email text' and references group and subscription filtering. It says nothing about limit or cursor behavior, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Find customers in an account's People directory') plus the filter dimensions (literal name/email text, group, changelog subscription). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_person or list_people_groups, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear usage context: search by literal text/group/subscription, includes linked patrons without email, excludes anonymous voters and deleted contacts, and requires members.manage. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g., when to use get_person for a single contact), so no explicit when-not routing.

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