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

Annotations already cover the read-only, open-world, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the required API scope and the English-fallback behavior for untranslated fields.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, with the time scope stated first and the auth and fallback details following. The opening sentence largely repeats the title, but the remaining sentences earn their place.

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 low-complexity, read-only list tool with an output schema, no required parameters, and simple optional parameters, the definition provides just enough context. The main lingering ambiguity is which timestamp defines 'last 24 hours' and the lack of explicit sibling routing.

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 lang parameter is already well documented in the schema with enum, default, and fallback semantics, and the description reinforces it. The limit parameter only gets min/max/default constraints with no semantic explanation, so an agent must infer its purpose from its name.

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 clearly names the resource (People) and the temporal scope (last 24 hours), and the tool name 'people_list' supplies the listing action. It is clear enough to distinguish from people_get via the get/list naming pattern, though it does not explicitly draw that contrast.

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 description conveys the context: a recent-people listing that requires the people API scope. However, it never states when to prefer this over people_get or the other list tools, and it offers no exclusions or alternative routing.

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