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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real value beyond that: it discloses pagination behavior and the response envelope (page, per_page, total), plus the underlying Elvanto endpoint (people/getAll). It stops short of stating default page size or max result behavior.

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 sentences with zero waste: capability and filters first, pagination behavior second, API reference last. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 and full schema description coverage, the description supplies the missing return-shape context via the pagination note, which is the key gap. The only omission is routing guidance relative to elvanto_search_people and elvanto_list_people_categories.

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%, with every parameter documented in the schema (including enum meanings for yes/no and the field list). The description only restates the filter axes at a high level, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List people in the church database') plus the optional filter axes (category, suspended/contact/archived status). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling elvanto_search_people, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 the filter enumeration, so an agent can infer when the filters apply, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to elvanto_search_people as the alternative for keyword-based lookup.

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