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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the workflow context but says nothing about matching behavior (exact vs partial), result ranking, or result limits, which matter for a lookup that returns ids.

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 tight sentences: what it searches first, why you would call it second. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and call motivation adequately. The remaining gap is what a result contains and how matches are ranked, which would help an agent consuming the returned ids.

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 the schema already documents the single query parameter thoroughly (name, job title, department). The description says "by name or email," which does not add meaning and actually diverges from the schema's stated searchable fields, so it earns no credit above baseline.

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?

"Find people in the team by name or email" gives a specific verb plus a scoped resource, and the second sentence explains the workflow role it plays. It is clearly distinct from write-oriented siblings like invite_team_member or update_request, though it never distinguishes itself from search_entities.

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 states a concrete use case: resolving an approver or manager to an id when a workflow field asks for a person. That is real when-to-use guidance, but there is no when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer the sibling search_entities.

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