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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description adds the pagination behavior and the literal REST endpoint, which is genuinely useful context, but it omits anything about result caps, rate limits, or ordering. Adequate but not rich.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the API endpoint is appended as supporting detail.

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 simple, read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully described schema, this is nearly complete. The only slight gap is that no output schema exists, so nothing indicates the shape of the returned applicant collection.

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 all three parameters (page, per_page, include_deleted) carry their own defaults and constraints, so the baseline is 3. The description only gestures at 'paginated' and adds no meaning beyond what page/per_page already document.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('List applicant (person) records in the Onfido account') and adds the scope 'paginated' plus the underlying API route GET /applicants. It distinguishes itself from onfido_get_applicant by the plural 'records' framing, but never explicitly names the sibling relationship, so it lands just short of 5.

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 the name and the word 'paginated' – an agent can infer this is the bulk-retrieval counterpart to onfido_get_applicant, but the description never says when to list versus fetch a single applicant, nor any preconditions. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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