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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: paid-access requirement and a per-person credit charge with a secondary property-credit cost for chargeable fields or associated properties. That is exactly the kind of consumption/side-effect context annotations cannot express. It does leave the odd destructiveHint=true unexplained, since the described operation only returns data.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: capability and scope first, then access prerequisite, then cost model. No filler, no repetition of schema constraints, and the most decision-relevant fact (cost) lands early enough to matter.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema coverage on four parameters, the description covers capability, prerequisites, cost, and the meaning of each parameter at a conceptual level. What is missing is partial-failure behavior (unknown or missing IDs) and any hint about the response envelope, which matters for a batch call up to 250 items.

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 carry the load, and it does: ids is flagged as required, 'optional extended fields' maps to fields, and 'associated properties' maps to include_properties/property_limit. It does not explain the 250/100 caps or the interaction between property_limit and include_properties, which the schema only bounds numerically.

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 with scope: 'Returns up to 250 people by DealMachine person ID', plus enumerated return contents (names, phones, emails, extended fields, associated properties). The 'by person ID' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the search and single-get siblings, but it never names those siblings to make the routing explicit.

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?

Provides prerequisite context (connected DealMachine account with paid access) and a cost model, which shapes willingness to call, but gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance against dealmachine_people_search, dealmachine_people_get, or dealmachine_people_count. The batch-by-ID use case is implied rather than stated.

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