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

Annotations already set readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive hints, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: notes are omitted by default with a has_notes flag, credential/secret spans are redacted server-side, limit/offset pagination with total and truncated signals, and a $0.10 cost plus API key requirement. 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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose, then pack in the most decision-relevant details (alternative tool, note behavior, pagination, auth, cost). No filler words; each clause carries information.

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 list endpoint with no required parameters, an output schema, and full annotations, the description covers all invocation concerns: authentication, pagination defaults, redaction, and relationship to sibling tools. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call the tool 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?

Although the schema has 100% coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the pagination contract (default 100, max 500, total/truncated), the default omission of notes and the has_notes flag, and the server-side redaction of credential/secret spans. This supports correct parameter choice.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the authenticated user's CRM people.' It clarifies the scope (authenticated user) and differentiates from the sibling get_person_photos by directing full galleries there. This removes ambiguity among the many get_* siblings.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative get_person_photos(person_id) for full gallery access and explains when to pass include_notes=true for progressive fetch. It also states the auth requirement (OAuth or supported scoped credential), giving the agent concrete conditions for invocation.

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