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 adds useful behavior beyond that: a cap of 20 results, ranking by match score, and the underlying endpoint (GET /person/identify). It omits auth, rate-limit, and pagination/truncation behavior, keeping it short of 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 sentences, all front-loaded: purpose first, then positioning, then the raw endpoint. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations, and there is no padding.

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 carries the return-behavior burden and does so — result count (up to 20), ordering (ranked by match score), and the ambiguity-tolerance intent. Combined with 100% schema coverage and readOnlyHint, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 one of the 18 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about how attributes combine or which are stronger signals, so the 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 and resource ('return up to 20 strongly-related profiles ranked by match score') and explicitly positions itself against the sibling tools enrich (1:1) and search (open-ended). An agent can distinguish pdl_person_identify from pdl_person_enrich and pdl_person_search without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it ('ideal when you can't uniquely resolve someone') and frames it between the two alternatives it is not ('sits between enrich (1:1) and search (open-ended)'). The selection condition is spelled out rather than left to inference.

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