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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with a safe, read-only operation. It adds context on cost and authentication requirements, and states that it returns only compact candidate clusters, which is a useful behavioral detail. No contradictions 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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose and output, the second provides a warning and cost/auth info. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no redundant fluff. However, it omits parameter guidance, but that's not a conciseness issue.

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?

The tool has 3 undocumented parameters and a specific purpose in a crowded domain of cleanup tools. The description differentiates from get_people but not from other cleanup tools like cleanup_preview or score_people_duplicates. It also doesn't explain what 'checks' values are valid or how 'min_confidence' relates to the output. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but parameter usage and selection criteria remain unclear, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'limit', 'checks', or 'min_confidence' mean, nor their expected formats or constraints. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description must compensate but does not. This leaves an agent guessing about how to set these parameters.

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 performs server-side contact hygiene and returns compact candidate clusters for specific issues (duplicates, entity-type hints, normalization, payment-handle collisions, junk names). It explicitly contrasts with get_people bulk dumps, making its purpose distinct from a major sibling. The verb 'audit' and resource 'people' are clear.

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 explicitly warns against using get_people bulk dumps for cleanup, directing the agent to this tool instead. It also mentions cost and API key requirements. However, it does not clarify when to choose this over other cleanup-specific siblings such as cleanup_preview or score_people_duplicates, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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