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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is a fan-out of two underlying calls and results are NOT cross-type ranked — an ordering trait the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing result caps or pagination, so not a 5.

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 with the when-to-use triggers and the core fan-out behavior, and every sentence carries information. The quoted trigger-phrase list and arrow notation are slightly dense but efficient rather than wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description explains what comes back (the union of list_works and list_people results) and points to lookup tools for details. It leaves the exact result shape and any result limits unspecified, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so query, type, and human_made_only are already fully documented. The description only implies that the same query is applied across both entity types; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('convenience fan-out across works and creators') plus the implementation detail that it runs list_works and list_people and returns the union. This clearly distinguishes it from directory_list_works, directory_list_people, and the lookup_* siblings.

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 explicit trigger phrases ('find me X', 'who or what is X?') and the key selection condition: use when the entity type is not yet known, and prefer list_works or list_people when it is. It also routes forward to directory_lookup_work and directory_lookup_person for follow-up.

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