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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive; the description goes well beyond by explaining the ranking model, what ranking_basis means, the per-person payload contents, and the concrete truncation rule (up to 2 links per verdict, at most 25 people not looked at yet in compact mode). That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from 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?

Front-loaded with the ranked-result structure, then usage, then detail-mode caveats; every clause carries information. It is a dense single block that could be split for scanability, but there is no 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so fully: headline, one-line why, one thing to check, per-criterion verdicts with links, decision, notes, availability, total score, ranking_basis. An agent can predict the response well enough to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining what 'compact' actually costs (shorter reasons, fewer links, capped not-yet-looked-at people) versus detail: 'full'. The include parameter's picks/all behavior is left entirely to the schema, which keeps this from a 5.

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+resource (get a role with everyone in it, ranked) and spells out the ordering semantics (picks, set aside, not looked at yet). The line 'This is the final order: call it after scoring' distinguishes it from upstream siblings like score_role_person or find_people_for_role.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance ('call it after scoring') and a concrete use case ('who should I talk to first?'). It does not name what to use instead for a lighter/preview read (e.g. get_shortlist), so no explicit exclusion is given.

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