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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the record fields returned (episode counts, latest appearance date) and the sort order, which an agent needs to interpret results.

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 compact sentences, zero filler; the resource and return shape come first and the filtering hint closes it out.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough (what a row contains, ordering, filter semantics) to invoke and interpret it. The only omission is guidance on the limit parameter, which is undocumented everywhere.

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 50%: query is fully documented in the schema, leaving limit undocumented in both places. The description's 'filter with a partial name' only restates the query parameter without adding syntax or matching behavior, and says nothing about the 1-50 limit cap or default page size.

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?

Uses a specific verb (list) and resource (hosts and guests in the library), and adds value beyond the name by clarifying that 'people' means hosts and guests, that results carry episode counts and latest appearance date, and that ordering is most-frequent-first. It is clearly a different resource from the episode- and topic-oriented siblings, though it does not 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?

'Filter with a partial name' gives an implied usage cue for the query parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. siblings guidance (e.g. versus search_episodes or get_episode) and no statement about defaults or when to omit the query.

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