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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: ranking by info gain, the contents of the queue, the $0.05 cost, and the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core differentiator: "Ranked clarification queue by info gain." It then packs usage guidance, content details, cost, and auth into a tight two-part sentence with 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?

Given that the tool has no required parameters, a complete output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it returns, why to use it, how much it costs, and what auth is required.

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 schema already documents both parameters completely, so the description does not need to carry the semantic load. It still adds useful context by tying 'entity_mention' to unresolved mentions and 'duplicate_people' to likely duplicate CRM people, going slightly beyond the schema's bare value list.

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 identifies a specific resource: a ranked clarification queue containing pending unresolved mentions and duplicate CRM people. It is very clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly name a sibling tool for differentiation, so it misses the top bar set in the rubric.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: prefer this tool for "what should I clarify?" and specifically calls out an alternative to avoid, reading people.notes. This gives an agent concrete guidance on when to select this tool over another approach.

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