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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world hint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that visibility is permission-scoped to the current principal, but says nothing about pagination behavior (limit/starting_after) or result shape, so it adds only modest value beyond the structured metadata.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the key parameter guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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, so the description must carry more of the load, yet it omits pagination semantics, the meaning of request_id, and the default ordering/limit. For a 4-parameter, 0%-documented listing endpoint, the two sentences are not enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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% for four parameters. The description only explains email (and only its conflict-resolution use, not that it filters by exact address); limit, starting_after and request_id are left completely undocumented in both schema and description, which is a significant gap for a paginated list tool.

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 (list people) plus a meaningful scope qualifier: results are limited to people visible to the current principal. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling reads such as yardstick_people_read or yardstick_applications_list, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives one concrete usage case: pass email to resolve the person behind a candidate_email_conflict. However, it never says when to use this list tool versus yardstick_people_read or why a caller would alias/filter rather than list, and gives no exclusions.

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