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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses useful behaviors: empty-list on no match, identical structure to the employees endpoint, and billing cost per call. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or whether results are read-only, leaving part of the burden unmet.

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 avoids repeating schema-level detail. The filter rule is front-loaded, followed by response-shape and empty-result behavior. The trailing group/billing metadata is short and useful, though the description would be slightly stronger if it opened with an explicit purpose statement.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important operational context: filter combinability, response structure via a known endpoint, empty-result behavior, and cost. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and authentication/error context, but the essential calling semantics are present and the schema covers parameter documentation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by stating that all filters are optional and can be combined. This cross-parameter semantic is not expressed per-property in the schema and helps an agent understand valid query construction.

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 title 'Search people' provides the verb and resource, and the description adds meaningful scope: all filters are optional/combinable and it returns a person structure identical to `/company/{companyId}/employees`. It is clear enough to distinguish from company-search and profile siblings, though the description itself never states the core action in an explicit sentence like 'Searches for people matching the given filters.'

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 implies usage by noting that filters are optional, combinable, and that results match the employee-list person structure. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over `get_company_companyId_employees` or `get_person_profile`, nor does it state exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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