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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: visibility is limited to projects the token can see, mentions must use the username rather than display name, and the same username or email can be used as an assignee. It does not cover ordering or response shape, but the annotations reduce that 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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the description is reasonably compact. The final sentence about mention syntax and assignee usage is useful but slightly long and drifts into cross-tool guidance.

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 listing tool with rich annotations and fully described parameters, the description covers scope, filters, mention syntax, and assignee reuse adequately. It does not describe return fields or ordering, but no output schema exists and the core behavior is clear.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces text filtering and project narrowing but does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and it omits the limit and includeInactive parameters that the schema explains.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List the people') and defines the exact scope: members of projects visible to the token who can be assigned or mentioned. This is more specific than a generic 'list users' and helps distinguish it from broader people-related tools.

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 clearly indicates the intended use case (finding people to assign or mention) and explains optional filtering. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_persons or find_person or state when those should be preferred.

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