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 only the GET /people endpoint and a field list; it does not add richer behavioral context such as result shape or sort behavior. A 3 is appropriate given the annotations carry the main burden.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and filters, with the endpoint tacked on last. No waste, though the trailing 'GET /people' is marginally redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a read-only list tool with fully documented parameters the description covers purpose and filtering adequately. Minor gap: it does not mention pagination behavior, which the offset param hints at but the description never surfaces.

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 the schema already documents all ten parameters with types, ranges, and semantics. The description's filter list maps onto existing params but adds no syntax or value details beyond the schema, 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/search) plus resource (people, clarified as contacts) and enumerates the fields involved. It is distinguishable from list_companies/list_leads by the resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from teamgate_search or teamgate_get_person.

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 implies usage by naming the filterable dimensions (name, email, phone, owner, customer status, creation date), so an agent can infer how to search. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the search tool or get_person, and no exclusions.

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