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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds useful domain context by scoping results to people who can answer a decision in the workspace, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or response shape. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no wasted words. It states the tool's purpose 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 paginated list tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to use limit/afterId/afterName or what the result contains, so an agent cannot call it correctly without guessing.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, afterId, afterName), and the description does not mention any parameter or explain pagination. It fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance for cursor-based listing.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List people') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('who can answer a decision in this workspace'). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the qualifier helps distinguish it from a generic people directory.

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 the tool is used when looking for people who can answer a decision, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as ask_person. The agent is left to infer the context.

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