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 contributes nothing beyond that – no pagination behavior, no note on what a company with no people returns, no auth or rate-limit context.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and free of filler. The endpoint sentence is largely redundant with the description and schema, keeping it just short of ideal.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about the shape of returned person records or how paging results should be consumed (though the offset parameter hints at next_offset). Annotations cover safety, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 company_id, limit, and offset are fully documented in the schema (including the helpful 'Pass the previous reply's next_offset' note). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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') plus resource ('people') and scopes it to 'one company', which implicitly separates it from the broader teamgate_list_people sibling. It does not name that sibling explicitly, and the trailing 'GET /companies/{id}/people.' restates the resource rather than adding meaning.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it has a company id and wants that company's contacts, versus teamgate_list_people for a global list. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g., valid company_id) guidance.

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