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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read, and the description adds real behavioral context: a hard cap of 30 results, login requirement, that phone numbers and cloud users are excluded, and that the candidate list is provisional because the server re-verifies on assignment. That last point is genuinely useful and not derivable from structured 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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the login gate and stays tight. It packs several distinct facts without filler, though the density makes it slightly harder to scan than a cleanly segmented description.

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, yet the description covers the essentials an agent needs: auth requirement, result ceiling, which upstream call consumes the ids, what is excluded, and that the list is not authoritative. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does explain both parameters: q is a nickname search, and organizationId switches selection to alliance-reachable scope when an alliance org id is supplied. It does not restate the schema length limits or format, but the semantics of both params are clear.

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: find people who can be assigned a task, searched by nickname over recent DM contacts and visible same-org members. It differentiates itself by naming its downstream consumer (create_direct_collaboration_task), though it never contrasts itself with the adjacent search_people / find_positioning_task_people 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 a precondition (login required) and the intended follow-up call (return ids to create_direct_collaboration_task), which implies when to use it. However it never states when to prefer this over search_people or search_organization_match_people, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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