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 adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral detail: names are stored 'Surname, Forename' but matching is order-independent and accent-insensitive. It does not mention pagination or result ordering behavior, which keeps this from a 5.

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 sentences and a closing pointer, front-loaded with the resource and the matching rule. The worked name examples earn their space by clarifying order-independence without extra prose.

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 read-only search with no output schema and strong annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is searched, how matching behaves, and where to go for full profiles. It omits pagination/result-shape guidance, which is a minor gap given limit/offset appear in the schema.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds real meaning for the matching semantics of the keyword parameter via the worked examples ('Oliver Baumann', 'Baumann, Oliver', 'Baumann'), but says nothing about limit/offset/affiliation, so it sits at the baseline for a well-covered schema.

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 and resource ('search the people authority list') and scopes it ('researchers and contributors'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like search_publications or search_projects. It also names get_person explicitly, so the agent can distinguish the lookup path from the detail path without opening schemas.

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 closing sentence 'Use get_person for a full profile' gives a clear alternative and the condition that selects it (want the full profile rather than a match). It stops short of stating when-not to use this tool (e.g. when you already have an exact ID), but the routing guidance is concrete.

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