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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys read-only listing and filterability but omits pagination behavior, default limit/offset, result ordering, and what a persona record contains; 'list' is safe but the behavioral surface is underdisclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope; no redundant words. Slightly more detail on parameters/pagination would be welcome but not at the cost of this concise structure.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is not complete: it omits required parameter semantics, pagination, return shape, and any exclusions. The filter list is useful but insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for three filter params (company, role, min_relevance), but does not explain the required search_id, the limit/offset semantics, or accepted formats for min_relevance (string value is opaque).

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 ('List'), resource ('people Vendo SDR has discovered'), and scope ('for a given Signal Search'), plus filter dimensions. This distinguishes it from single-person (sdr_get_person_detail) and export (sdr_export_people_csv) siblings, though it does not name them.

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?

Implies usage: call this when you have a search_id and want the discovered contacts. It provides filter context (company, role, min_relevance) but gives no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection for the many sibling tools.

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