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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: freshness via 'when AyHire last checked', provenance for may_fit ('no model, never location'), return content, and the 'added' flag semantics. Pagination, auth, and result-size behavior are not described.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides the key return-value semantics without filler. Two sentences carry all necessary information efficiently.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned, what may_fit means, what 'added' signifies, and where to go for the add action.

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 workspace parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces its default/current-workspace behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb/resource combination: it lists everyone watched in the current workspace and explains exactly what the response includes. It also distinguishes adding people by pointing to add_people_to_role.

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?

Usage is clear from the workspace-scoped 'watched' framing, and the description explicitly routes adding someone to add_people_to_role. It does not exclude or compare against nearby read tools such as list_workspace_members, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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