person_list

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. With no output schema, the description earns credit by disclosing the return shape (slug, name, archived, updated, synthesized_at, stale/unverified counts, memories_since_synthesis) and explaining the derived semantics of the last field.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that starts with the verb and resource; nothing is wasted. The trailing parenthetical is dense and slightly tangled, which costs it the top score.

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 read-only list tool with one optional flag and no output schema, the field enumeration plus the memories_since_synthesis explanation covers the main gap an agent would otherwise face. Ordering is the only notable omission, and it is minor.

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% and the single optional parameter include_archived is fully documented in the schema ('default false'). The description adds nothing about it, which is the expected baseline when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List person cards') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like person or person_history, leaving that routing to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative, but the parenthetical about memories_since_synthesis implies a real workflow ('how the consolidation lane finds summaries that have fallen behind'). That is implied usage rather than real guidance.

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