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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral value: what the roster contains and that the returned handles are directly reusable as inputs to create_task/handoff_task, plus the access-scoping guarantee. It omits pagination or roster-size limits for large clients.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the roster is before the workflow advice. The API-reference link is placed last and does not interrupt the decision-relevant content.

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?

A read-only list tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema and no output schema; the description supplies the contents, the routing purpose, and the sibling to avoid. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented, including that 'client' accepts a name or @handle and is fuzzy-resolved. The description's @handle mention refers to output values rather than input syntax, so it adds essentially nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Roster of everyone who works on a client') and enumerates the contents: human teammates plus AI/robot workers with their @handles. An agent can distinguish this from find_people or list_agents without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Call this before choosing an assignee') and an explicit exclusion ('do not guess from find_people alone'), naming the sibling it is meant to supersede. Routing intent is unambiguous.

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