get_people

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context: pagination, the POST endpoint, optional parameters, and the expected display fields (name/email first). This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 three short sentences with no filler. Purpose, endpoint, usage context, and output expectation are all packed efficiently and 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 simple paginated list endpoint with no required parameters and no output schema, this description provides sufficient guidance to invoke the tool correctly. It could be stronger by clarifying pagination behavior or the relationship to get_contacts, but it is largely complete for its complexity.

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 0%, but the endpoint signature {accountIds?, cursor?, limit?} clarifies the meaning of account_ids_json, cursor, and limit. Property names are self-explanatory, yet the description does not explain the JSON format for account_ids_json or cursor semantics in detail.

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 tool lists people/contacts from connected accounts and even includes the exact endpoint. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though get_contacts exists as a potentially overlapping sibling and no differentiation is provided.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Call when searching attendees by directory.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not discuss when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like get_contacts.

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