get_people

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions optional pagination and the data structure returned, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get').

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 description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of return data. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The bullet points make the return format easily scannable.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 100% parameter schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides good context about what data is returned and the pagination capability. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'optional pagination' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all team members/people', specifying it returns comprehensive team member data. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_person' (singular) by emphasizing it retrieves multiple people, and from 'quick_search' by focusing on complete team listings rather than filtered searches.

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 usage for retrieving team member lists with pagination, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_person' for single members or 'quick_search' for filtered results. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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