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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description contributes non-annotation context: the scope is limited to the calling user's own CRM records, results are ordered newest-first, and the returned uuids are the input to get_person. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result volume.

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 short sentences, none wasted: scope and ordering first, filterability second, follow-on tool third. Front-loaded and skimmable.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by noting the meaningful return field (person uuids) and its downstream use. With annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage on all seven filters, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a precise description; the baseline is 3. The description restates the filter categories (name/email text, investor flags, company slug) but adds no syntax, format, or combination guidance beyond what the schema documents.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope ('the authenticated user's CRM people'), explicit ordering ('newest first'), and a parenthetical enumerating what a person can be (founders, co-investors, intro sources). An agent can distinguish this from list_investors or search without opening any 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?

States the filtering dimensions and adds a chaining hint ('Person uuids feed get_person'), which tells the agent where to go next. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this over the sibling list_investors or the generic search tool, so the routing against close alternatives is left to inference.

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