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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds real context those annotations cannot convey: this call is free, nothing is looked up, no charge is incurred, and results are restricted to the caller's own history — the cost/scope model that actually determines whether an agent should call it.

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 well with the core answer in the first sentence, but it repeats the same idea twice: "Free: nothing is charged" and again "Nothing is looked up and nothing is charged." The duplication and the triple example-query list pad a description that could be half as long.

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, no-required-param history listing, the description covers what comes back (people, write-ups, calls) and the cost/scope boundary. It is only short on the mechanics of `limit` and any ordering/pagination note, which leaves a small gap given there is no output 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?

The single parameter `limit` has 0% schema description coverage — no description, no stated default or max in the schema text — and the description never mentions it at all. With low coverage the description is supposed to compensate, and it does not, so paging/result-size behavior is undocumented.

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 concrete verb ("Lists") and resource (people you researched, write-ups made, calls run) and pins the scope hard: "yours only, nobody else's." That scope plus "what you have already looked up" cleanly separates it from the research/enrichment siblings like enrich_person and get_dossier without needing to name them.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("Worth calling before you pay for something") and three sample user intents ("have I checked this person before", "what did I look at last week", "show me what I have"). It never names a specific alternative tool or a when-not case, so it stops short of a 5.

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