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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: it names people/group access, never content, and it returns not-found for scopes the caller cannot reach, making that indistinguishable from a nonexistent scope. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe how the response is structured, but the key security-relevant behaviors are covered.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage timing, return scope, and error/visibility behavior. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no redundant or promotional wording.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential points: what is returned, when to call it, and how inaccessible scopes are handled. It does not specify the exact output shape or how direct versus inherited access is represented, but this is a minor gap for a tool whose core semantics are otherwise clearly described.

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 already documents location with an example, token override semantics, and the scope_type enum, covering about 67% of parameters meaningfully. The description adds a conceptual folder/document framing that aligns with scope_type, but it does not add detail beyond the schema, which is adequate but not exceptional.

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 states exactly what the tool does: it identifies who can currently reach a specific folder or document, covering internal people/groups with direct or inherited access and external holders of shares. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_org_people by scoping to a specific location and returning access relationships rather than directory membership.

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 explicit use cases: call after sharing to confirm the grant landed, or before sharing to see who is already there. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the provided context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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