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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context: the lighter default payload (id/first_name/last_name/photo) vs the heavier details=true payload keyed by field_id and marked "slower", plus the warning that omitting limit returns everyone and "can be large". No contradictions with the annotation.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: core behavior first, then return-shape tradeoff, then filter semantics with examples, then the API mapping. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema and a nested filter object, the description adequately covers return shape, the details tradeoff, pagination, and filter key mechanics. Minor gap: it doesn't quantify the size/latency of the "large" default or pagination interaction with offset beyond the schema hint.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it by explaining the filter key/value semantics with concrete examples ({"tag_contains":"y_16681"}, {"2000138015":"226-227"}) that the schema's generic string map does not convey. Details and limit/offset semantics are echoed rather than extended.

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 ("List people in the church database") and immediately scopes it via optional filter/pagination, clearly distinguishing it from sibling singletons like breeze_get_person. An agent can tell what it returns and how it differs from the write tools.

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 clear context for filtering and pagination and routes the agent to breeze_list_profile_fields to discover filter keys. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. when to prefer breeze_get_person), so it's strong but not fully specified.

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