get_people

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states it's a read operation ('Retrieve'), which is safe, but doesn't mention pagination limits (max 30, default 15 from schema), default behavior with no query, or whether results are ordered. For a read tool this is acceptable basic transparency but lacks richer context.

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?

Single concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. No waste, no fluff. Efficient and to the point, though it could arguably include a bit more usage detail without hurting conciseness.

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 collection tool with fully documented parameters, the description is adequate but minimal. With no annotations and no output schema, it could mention pagination requirements or result format. It's not incomplete enough to be problematic but doesn't add safety or expectation context beyond what's obvious.

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 100%, so all three parameters (q, page, itemsPerPage) are documented in the schema. The description adds 'filter by name, email, or other fields' context for q but the schema already explains these. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and description adds minimal extra value.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Retrieve all people/contacts from RogerRoger CRM'. Distinguishes from siblings like get_person (singular) and create/update/delete operations. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from get_person or note that this is the plural/list operation, though 'all people/contacts' implies it.

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 implies this is for retrieving a collection of people, which is differentiated by siblings (get_person is singular). But there's no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_person, no mention of pagination behavior, and no mention that q is optional for full listing. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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