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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the implicit status filter that silently hides expired and deactivated people unless overridden. That default-hiding behavior is the most important non-obvious trait for correct use, though result format and pagination behavior are left to the schema.

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 plus the endpoint, with the resource scope front-loaded and the default/override rule second. No restatement of the title and no 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 return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the useful fields (name, email, status, validity window, PIN/card number). Combined with the default-filter disclosure and the fully documented 5-parameter schema, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it ties 'access users (permanent)' vs 'access guests (time-limited)' to the type enum, and clarifies that status is an opt-in widening of a default rather than a required filter. Page/per_page/sort are left entirely to the schema.

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 (list access persons) and immediately disambiguates the two entity kinds it returns — permanent access users vs. time-limited access guests — plus the fields included. It also names the backing endpoint (GET /access_persons), so an agent can distinguish it from list_person_accesses and list_device_accesses 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?

Explains the default scope ('only current and upcoming people') and the override path ('pass status to include expired or deactivated'), which is the main selection decision for this tool. It does not explicitly route to siblings such as get_access_person for single-record detail, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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