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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: the returned roster includes both human and AI workers and exposes @handles intended for direct use with create_task or handoff_task. It doesn't cover edge behaviors like empty rosters or client not found, but those are minor for this tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads what the roster contains and immediately gives actionable guidance about when and why to use the tool.

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 simple read-only lookup with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return value (@handles) and the primary use case. The only notable gap is not explaining what happens when both client and client_id are omitted, or whether at least one is expected.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented: client is fuzzy-resolved and client_id is for when it is already known. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond tying the roster to a client, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (a client's roster) and the specific contents (human teammates and AI/robot workers with @handles). It also implicitly differentiates this from find_people by warning against guessing assignees from find_people alone.

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 an explicit when-to-use instruction: call this before choosing an assignee. It also names an alternative (find_people) and explains why it is insufficient for routing work to the right client-access teammate.

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