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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value beyond the annotation: 'Not paginated' (a meaningful negative constraint for a list tool) plus a preview of the returned fields, which annotations do not convey.

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 tightly-packed sentence that front-loads the core action, followed by one short caveat and the API path reference. Every element earns its place; nothing is 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?

readOnly annotation, full schema coverage, and the description together give an agent enough to call this correctly, including the pagination caveat. It is near-complete for a straightforward read; the lack of an output schema is not a gap since return fields are previewed.

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 step_id, status, and assigned. The description's mention of 'status' and 'assigned admin' loosely maps to two parameters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is 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?

Clear specific verb (List) and resource (people currently in one people-flow step), with scope explicit ('one step') and return fields named (status, due date, assigned admin). It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with (e.g. list_people_flow_steps), so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

The example ('who still needs a follow-up call') implies a usage context but states no explicit when/when-not conditions and names no alternative tool. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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