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

Annotations declare readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld, but the description adds the key behavioral facts an agent cannot get elsewhere: unauthenticated calls return only the first 20 matches with the last 5 withheld, email addresses are omitted without an API key, and narrowing filters is the way to surface the right people in that first page. That is substantial disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences, purpose first, then capability, then the practical limitation and workaround — well front-loaded with no filler. The final sentence is long and slightly restates the page-limit constraint, costing a little tightness.

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, yet the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the truncation behavior; combined with 9 params at high schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret a result.

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?

With 89% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description names the filter dimensions (domain, name, title, seniority, department, sector, B2B/B2C) and hints at combinability with a concrete example ('domain plus a title'), which goes slightly beyond the per-field schema text.

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 and resource ('find_people' -> people at a company or in a role) and enumerates exactly what is returned: names, job titles, seniority, department and LinkedIn URLs. This clearly distinguishes it from search_companies/lookup_company, which operate on companies rather than people.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger ('Use this when the user wants people at a company or in a role') and gives a tactical guideline for narrowing filters ('for example a domain plus a title'). It never names the sibling it is not, so an agent must infer the boundary against search_companies and lookup_company.

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