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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint and enumerates filterable dimensions, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume beyond what the schema implies.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the resource and its scope front-loaded and the endpoint appended. Nothing extraneous.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, most agent needs are met and no output schema is expected to be explained. The only meaningful gap is the unaddressed relationship to deskpro_list_agents, which is a real disambiguation need.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description restates the filterable dimensions (name, email, organization, agent flag) without adding syntax, format, or interaction detail, 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?

Specific verb+resource ("List people") with useful scope clarification that it covers both end users and agents. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling deskpro_list_agents, an obvious overlap, nor from deskpro_get_person for single-record lookups.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives named. Given a sibling literally called deskpro_list_agents, an agent needs to know whether to call this tool or that one, and the description never addresses it. The filter hints describe capability, not usage context.

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