People

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing that each row includes an open-promise count, hinting at the return payload. It doesn't state ordering, whether former/inactive people are included, or freshness, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, no waste, with the content of the response front-loaded and the routing guidance second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and zero parameters, the description only needs to convey what the list is and when to call it, which it does. It omits anything about scale or ordering, a minor gap for an enumerate-everything tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing in the schema needs elaboration and the description correctly implies a full, unfiltered enumeration.

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?

A specific verb-plus-resource: it lists every person Griasa knows by name and says each entry carries an open-promise count. Naming get_person and list_commitments as the next steps makes it clearly distinct from its siblings.

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?

"Use to find the exact spelling before get_person or list_commitments" gives a concrete trigger and names the alternatives it precedes. It stops short of any exclusion (e.g., when to skip it and go straight to a known person id), so not a full when/when-not pair.

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