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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. 'Paged' is the one added behavioral fact, and even that is already spelled out in the schema's page/page_size descriptions, leaving the description with little beyond structured data.

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 short sentences, the scope constraint front-loaded, and no filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 list tool with full schema coverage this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description never says what a person record contains or how the paging envelope is shaped. An agent knows what to call but not what comes back.

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 every parameter (page, page_size, order_by, order_direction, company_id) is already documented, including the odd 'Use next_page from the previous reply' hint. The description only echoes the company scoping, adding no format or interaction detail. 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 (list) and resource (contact persons) plus a scope constraint (of one company), which cleanly separates it from papierkram_get_person and papierkram_list_companies. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 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?

The phrase 'of one company' implies the caller must already have a company in hand, which is the only real usage guidance given. Nothing states when to prefer this over papierkram_get_person for a single contact, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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