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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds material context beyond them: the available return fields, the absence of email addresses, the team field in the result, and what happens when query has no match. It also clarifies that the mention link notifies the person when used in feedback content and that this tool does not expose who can open an item.

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 front-loaded with what the tool lists and the returned fields, then moves to practical usage and scope exclusions. Despite being dense, every sentence carries useful information; the long mention URL is actionable rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does: user_id, name, role, avatar_url, mention link, and the team field. It also covers privacy behavior, query edge cases, and the sibling alternative for access settings. Nothing material is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful query semantics (names containing the query are kept; no match yields an empty list) and reinforces team context, though it does not add much beyond the schema for team_id.

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 and resource: it lists the people on the team and names the fields returned, including user_id, name, role, avatar_url, and mention link. It also distinguishes this team-wide listing from permission_get, which covers item access settings. An agent can select it without opening the 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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for mentioning someone in feedback_post / feedback_update content and provides the exact mention-link pattern. It also states query behavior and the empty-list outcome, and directs item-access use cases to permission_get. This is clear when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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