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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, and the description still adds substantive information beyond them: the tool is free, and quotas vary by credential tier (50 reads/20 searches anonymous up to 5,000/1,000 for verified companies), which directly affects how an agent should pace calls. It also states the matching logic (role family plus shared skills) and links to docs, all of which is invisible in the annotations.

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 the purpose clause, then the intended use case, then limits, then a docs link — a sensible information order with no filler. The quota sentence is long and enumerates four tiers inline, which costs readability slightly, but every clause carries decision-relevant content.

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 3-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the matching basis, the optional country filter, the credential/quota model, and where to read more. The main gap is that it does not hint at what each result row contains or whether match rationale is returned, which an agent might want; otherwise nothing needed 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 coverage is 67%, with 'person' and 'country' documented in the schema; the description's 'optionally in one country' reinforces that country is a filter, not a requirement. The 'limit' parameter (1-20) is documented only by its numeric bounds and gets no semantic framing in the description, such as what a sensible shortlist size is. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries most of the load.

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 a specific verb-like operation and resource: find 'People like a given one' and defines the similarity basis as 'the same role family and the skills they share, optionally in one country.' This is far more precise than the title alone and lets an agent distinguish it from get_person or search_people. It stops short of explicitly naming the nearest siblings (match_people, search_people), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'For a shortlist built from a good candidate' implies the triggering situation — you already have one strong profile and want more like it — which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives: nothing says when to use search_people or match_people instead, nor what happens if the seed profile is unknown or sparse. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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