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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the underlying endpoint (GET /api/v2/people) and no pagination, result shaping, or side-loading behavior of its own, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and its filtering dimensions; nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 9-parameter, fully documented list tool with readOnly annotations, the description covers purpose and filtering adequately. With no output schema, a brief note on the paginated list result and the relationship to deskpro_list_agents would close the 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 the schema already documents all nine parameters with ranges, enums, and patterns. The description restates the name-search and email/org/agent filters but adds no format, syntax, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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") and clarifies scope with the parenthetical "(end users and agents)," plus the filterable dimensions. It is clearly the collection-listing counterpart to the single-record deskpro_get_person, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the distinction.

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 is implied by "searchable by name and filterable by email, organization or agent flag," which tells the agent when the filters apply but not when to prefer this over alternatives. It notably fails to route between this tool and the sibling deskpro_list_agents, which overlaps with the is_agent filter.

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