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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description still adds genuine unannotated behavior: the { count, next_skip, items } envelope, the 'pass next_skip as skip' paging contract, and the underlying GET /people endpoint. Extra credit for the return shape and pagination, but no detail on defaults, permissions, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with what people are, then mode selection, then paging, then filtering, then endpoint. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fills the important gaps: return envelope, paging loop, and filter strategies. It stops short of describing what an 'items' record actually contains or how 'filters' and 'query' interact, so 4 rather than 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the id-versus-list mode switch and the pagination handshake ('pass next_skip as skip'), which are cross-parameter behaviors the schema cannot express. It could additionally say whether 'query' and 'filters' can be combined, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb-resource pair and immediately defines the resource's scope: clients plus own team members, with the fields carried (name, role, contactEmails, contactPhones, companies). This implicitly separates it from plutio_list_companies and plutio_create_person, though it never names those siblings explicitly, which keeps it just 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?

Gives clear mode selection: 'Pass id to read one record' versus bulk listing, and distinguishes exact-match filtering ('filters') from MongoDB-style predicates ('query'). It does not state when-not to use it or explicitly point at alternatives such as list_companies, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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