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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint (GET /people), which corroborates read-only behavior but adds little beyond what annotations supply. Nothing is said about pagination limits or volume of results, leaving that to the schema.

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?

Three short sentences: capability first, refinements second, sibling routing third. No redundant field enumeration and no filler.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters, this covers the essentials. The only minor gap is that the shape of the returned collection (paging envelope, next_page) is not referenced in the description, though the schema's page parameter hints at it.

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 every parameter — page, order enum values, perpage limits, includes list, tag_name — is already documented in structured form. The description's mention of tag filtering and ordering is a strictly less precise restatement. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 contact people') plus its optional narrowing and ordering scope, and explicitly names search_people as the sibling it is not. An agent can distinguish it from list_companies, list_deals, and search_people without opening any schema.

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 an explicit routing rule: use search_people to find a person by name, email or phone, implying this tool is for enumerating/browsing. The condition that selects the alternative is named, not left to inference.

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