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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is well established. The description adds useful scoping context (single node vs whole landscape) but does not describe return shape, pagination, or whether the result includes only directly assigned people or also inherited roles. It adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the alternative tool is presented concisely in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 list operation with strong annotations, the description covers the essential scope and sibling differentiation. It does not describe return fields, but there is no output schema and the operation is simple enough that the absence of return-value detail is not a critical gap. Minor param ambiguity holds it back from a 5.

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 only 33%, with orgId and teamId undocumented. The description only loosely clarifies nodeId's role as 'one process landscape node' but does not explain what orgId or teamId mean, how they constrain results, or why teamId is optional. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate more.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('people involved in the process behind one process landscape node'), clearly identifying the scope as a single node. It also distinguishes itself from getClarityHierarchyPeople by explicitly naming the sibling it is not.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for one process landscape node) and when to use the alternative (getClarityHierarchyPeople for people across the whole landscape). This is direct, actionable routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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