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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behaviour: results are newest-first per Street's ordering, and results are paged. It omits return-shape details (the presence of a next_page cursor that the schema references) and says nothing about how trashed/include affect results.

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?

Roughly two sentences plus an endpoint, with the identity of the resource and the ordering constraint front-loaded. The trailing 'GET /people' is mild filler for an agent but harmless and confirms scope.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the response envelope (data plus included plus next_page) that the pagination advice implicitly depends on. For a zero-required-parameter list tool with 11 optional filters, a reader of the description alone would not know filtering is possible.

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 is already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces page/page_size and adds no semantics for the filter, date-range, trashed or include parameters that drive most real queries.

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+resource and disambiguates 'people' as contacts with the fields they carry, which is more than the title offers. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours like street_get_person (single record) or street_list_tenants/landlords, so an agent must infer that this is the generic unpinned list.

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 description gives concrete procedural guidance for pagination (page/page_size) and states the sort order, which is real usage help. It never says when to prefer this over street_get_person or the typed list siblings, and never mentions that the 11 filter parameters exist, so the choice between list tools is left implicit.

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