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 usefully adds that pagination is cursor-based and filters are supported, but says nothing about default page size behavior, rate limits, or what the return shape looks like – modest added value beyond structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Tight overall, though the trailing 'Folk REST: GET /v1/people' line adds little beyond implementation trivia.

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?

For a read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and a trivial nested filter object, the description is adequate; the only meaningful omission is the return/pagination shape, which is partially implied. No output schema exists, so return values are not strictly required to be explained.

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 limit, cursor, filter, and combinator are all fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'cursor pagination' and 'structured filters' without adding syntax or format detail, so the schema baseline of 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 (List/filter) and resource (people/contacts), and names the REST endpoint it wraps. An agent can easily distinguish it from folk_list_companies or folk_list_notes by resource, but the description never explicitly routes against the get_person/create_person/update_person siblings.

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 mention of cursor pagination and structured filters implies the read/list use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no stated alternative (e.g., 'use folk_get_person for a single contact'). Usage is left to inference.

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