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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the weekly check cadence, the re-check logic for inactive people, credit costs per check and per item, and the note that monitored people are unlimited and not counted against the source limit. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and field list, then paging, filtering, and behavioral details. Every sentence carries relevant information, though the credit-cost details could be seen as slightly tangential to the primary listing operation.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (0 required), an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained in the description), and the description covers paging, filtering, search scope, monitoring cadence, credit costs, and limits, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates by explaining that limit defaults to 50 and maxes at 100, that offset enables paging, that total is the number of rows matching status and q, that status filters active/inactive/removed/all, and that q searches name, company, headline, and profile URL. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, though the schema itself leaves some parameter descriptions blank.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the people your workspace monitors under Intelligence (Person Activity Monitoring)') and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_person_intelligence (single snapshot) and monitor_person (creation).

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?

Usage context is implied by the description and sibling tools (e.g., use list_monitored_people to see who is being monitored, then get_person_intelligence for details). However, the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_watchlist or list_intelligence.

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