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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: 'Not paginated' tells the agent it gets one complete set rather than a page it must iterate. It also names the upstream endpoint (peopleFlows/steps/people), useful for tracing. It does not state ordering or result-size limits, so not a 5.

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 fragments with the core purpose front-loaded and nothing padded. The trailing 'Elvanto: peopleFlows/steps/people' is borderline redundant with the name, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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 usefully compensates by naming the fields returned (status, due date, assigned admin) and by flagging non-pagination. All three parameters are schema-documented. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering, for a simple read/list tool.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already explains step_id, status enum values and the assigned/unassigned convention. The description's mention of 'status' and 'assigned admin' roughly mirrors those params without adding format or default detail, so it does not exceed the schema.

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 the people currently in one people-flow step') and immediately enumerates what is returned (status, due date, assigned admin). This clearly separates it from the sibling elvanto_list_people_flow_steps, which lists the steps themselves rather than the people inside one.

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 a concrete use scenario ('e.g. who still needs a follow-up call'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right reach. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. 'use elvanto_list_people_flow_steps to find step_id first'), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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