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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false. The description adds the visibility-to-current-principal context, but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or default page size. With annotations handling side-effect transparency, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the verb and resource immediately and adds the useful authorization-scope qualifier in just a few words.

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 simple read-only list operation with no required parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, since there is no output schema and no pagination/request_id explanation, the agent is left to infer how to page through results and whether request_id affects behavior.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for explaining limit, starting_after, and request_id, but it does not mention any of them. The parameter names hint that limit and starting_after relate to pagination, but request_id semantics and cursor behavior are unexplained.

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?

The description states the verb 'List' and the resource 'people', and adds an important scope qualifier: 'visible to the current principal.' This clearly distinguishes it from single-record tools like yardstick_people_read and from other entity listers such as yardstick_prospects_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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that yardstick_people_read should be used for a single person, nor does it clarify how this differs from prospect or talent-pool list tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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