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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant. Beyond the annotations, though, it discloses non-obvious behavior: default ordering, duplicate-merge exclusion semantics, and the response envelope {items, total, has_more} — all of which materially affect how results should be interpreted.

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 purpose and ordering, then filter semantics, then the merge caveat, then return shape — each sentence earns its place with no filler. The only slack is the 'Read-only' sentence, which duplicates an annotation, but it is a single word-level cost.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return envelope. Combined with merge exclusion and filter semantics, an agent has enough to call and interpret this correctly; only the limit/offset pagination contract is left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain q (multi-field search across name/phone/email/telegram), talent_pool (reserve pool), and responsible_user_id (single recruiter's people). It says nothing about limit or offset beyond what their types imply, leaving 2 of 5 parameters undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('List candidates/people'), plus scope ('in the caller's HR workspace') and ordering ('newest first'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling hr_get_person by explaining that merged-away duplicates are only reachable there, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions for each filter and explicitly redirects to hr_get_person for records merged away as duplicates, which is a genuine alternative-tool hand-off. It does not, however, contrast itself against the many other hr_list_* siblings (members, applications, etc.), so some selection reasoning is left implicit.

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