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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description explicitly discloses response-size limits and the `truncated` flag behavior, plus the flat result shape. This gives the agent actionable behavioral context about possible partial results and internal cap-causing conditions.

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 earn their place: the purpose, the returned fields, filter guidance with a size-cap warning, a specific use case, and the truncation flag. It is front-loaded and there is no repetition or extraneous detail.

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?

This is a read-only listing tool with no output schema, so the description carries the responsibility for the return shape. It does so completely: the fields, the filters to narrow the result, the warning about response-size refusal, and the meaning of `truncated` are all present, making it sufficient for an agent to call this tool safely.

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 80%, so the baseline stays at 3. The description repeats the schema's parameter meanings (rootId -> subtree, ownerTeamId -> team, userId/search -> one person) rather than adding a substantial new layer of meaning for the parameters themselves. The captureCount use case is a usage hint more than deep parameter semantics.

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 clear action (list) and resource ('people attached to every authorized linked process node in the organization's Process Landscape') and details the flat output fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like listClarityLandscapeNodePeople or listClarityProcessMembers, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Clear context is provided for narrowing results via rootId, ownerTeamId, userId, and search, including a warning that an unfiltered roster may be rejected by response-size caps. It also gives a concrete use case (find processes where a person hasn't captured) but does not exclude alternatives or name when to prefer other tools.

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