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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail about multiple matches and the need to ask which one, but says nothing about return format, history inclusion, or data freshness.

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 with no wasted marketing language, and the not-found behavior is useful. The phrasing 'one of the member's people' is slightly awkward but not harmful.

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 simple read tool with annotations and a fully covered schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves an agent unsure how this differs from contacts_get and does not explain what 'facts and history' actually returns.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the parameter descriptions are terse placeholders ('Who.', 'History.', 'Workspace...'). The description does not clarify what 'history' toggles or how project scoping behaves, but the schema itself technically documents all three parameters.

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 states the resource ('facts and history about one of the member's people') but does not use a clear retrieval verb or distinguish this from siblings like connections_contacts_get or connections_intel_remember_about_person. An agent can infer this is a read of stored intelligence, but the exact scope remains vague.

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 only guidance is a post-failure instruction ('If not found, ask which match'), which is useful for ambiguity handling but does not say when to use this tool versus contacts_get or remember_about_person. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition.

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