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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotation behavior: result ordering (featured first, then alphabetical) and cursor-based paging semantics, which help an agent predict the listing shape.

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 scope and ordering, then the sibling routing, then a compact usage example — every element earns its place. The opening is a verbless fragment, which is slightly less crisp than it could be, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description supplies the remaining decision-relevant context: ordering, filtering, paging, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters (role, technology, limit, cursor) are already documented in the schema, including bounds and the next_cursor contract. The description's inline example reinforces the filter combination but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the exact resource (designers and design engineers in the catalogue), its ordering rule (featured first, then by name), and its filter/paging capabilities, which lets an agent distinguish it from search_people without opening the schema. It is a specific scope statement rather than a restatement of the name.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: "Use search_people to find someone by name or focus," naming the sibling and the condition that selects it. Combined with the stated browsing/ordering behavior, an agent can decide between the two tools without inference.

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