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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by stating that presence includes both people and agents and that it reflects current state, which goes beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 focused sentences, with the action and subject front-loaded and no wasted wording. The second sentence efficiently conveys the key routing guidance without elaboration.

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 presence-listing tool with a full output schema and fully described optional parameters, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns conceptually, how to reference documents and workspaces, and when internal identifiers are unnecessary.

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 each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the schema carries most of the parameter semantics. The description adds a useful summary of preferring natural names over internal identifiers, but it does not materially extend what the schema says.

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 a precise resource ('people and agents currently present in a collaborative document'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is also distinct from sibling tools such as get_publish_status or read_article, since presence is a unique concept.

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 clear practical guidance: prefer natural workspace names and document titles, and treat internal identifiers as optional. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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