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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a non-destructive read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the REST endpoint (GET /api/v2/persons), which is useful orientation, but discloses nothing about pagination behavior or return shape beyond what the schema's cursor field already implies.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the capability statement is front-loaded and the REST endpoint is a compact secondary detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 could note what the listing returns and that responses carry a next_cursor for pagination. As written it is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves the return contract and paging flow to the schema to imply.

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 all seven parameters are fully documented by the schema. The description's mention of filter/owner/org/sort merely echoes those parameters without adding format or constraint detail, 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 (List) and resource (persons/contacts) and enumerates the filtering/sorting surfaces. It implicitly separates from get_person/create_person by being a list operation, but it never names the close sibling search_persons, so an agent must infer the list-vs-search distinction.

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 'optionally filtered by filter/owner/org and sorted' gives implied context for when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of search_persons as the alternative. 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.