list_persons

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds search and pagination context, but does not mention response format, default limits, or any limitations. For a simple read-only list operation, this is adequate but not rich, lacking details like whether results are sorted or how the list is structured.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and key features without verbosity. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential aspects (listing, search, pagination) and is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function. It could mention that it returns a list of persons or that search is optional, but these are implicit, so it remains reasonably complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described (limit, offset, search). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates that search is by name or distinct_id, which the schema also says. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 'List PostHog persons (users)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_person (which retrieves a single person) and list_events (which lists events), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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 listing or searching persons, explicitly mentioning search by name or distinct_id and pagination. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternatives like get_person, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this for listing rather than fetching a single person.

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