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 genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it is paginated and the response carries page, per_page, total, and it maps to the underlying Elvanto endpoint people/getAll. No contradictions with the read-only 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?

Three compact sentences: capability and filters first, then pagination semantics, then the upstream API mapping. Almost every clause carries information an agent can act on, with no padding.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by disclosing the pagination envelope (page, per_page, total), which is the main thing an agent needs to iterate. It stops short of describing what a person record contains, though the fields parameter and its cross-references offset that 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% and each parameter carries a detailed description (including defaults, enum meanings, and a cross-reference to elvanto_list_custom_fields for custom fields), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the filter categories at a high level, adding nothing beyond the schema — the baseline 3 when coverage is complete.

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") plus the filter dimensions it supports, so the agent knows it enumerates rather than fetches a single person. It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling elvanto_search_people, leaving the boundary between "list" and "search" to inference.

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 only implied by naming the filters (category, suspended/contact/archived), which suggests bulk enumeration of a category of people. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when to prefer elvanto_search_people or elvanto_get_person instead.

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