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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: the result mixes client-team and company-staff populations, and the returned staff IDs are the ones assignees expect. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether the two populations are distinguishable in the response.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the scope statement front-loaded and the actionable hint second. Only deduction is the fragmentary first sentence, which reads as a label rather than a stated action.

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 must carry return-value burden; it does partially by naming the two people populations and the assignee-ID use case. It still leaves unanswered what fields come back (IDs, names, emails), whether clients and staff are separated, and whether the list is paginated or filtered.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents workspaceId. The description adds no syntax, format, or default detail for it, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema carries this dimension entirely.

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 names the resource and its scope ("Everyone on a workspace: the client team and the company's staff"), which tells an agent it returns both external clients and internal staff. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no explicit verb, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like list_company_people or list_members, which an agent must choose between.

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?

"Use staff IDs for assignees" gives implied downstream guidance linking this tool to assignee selection (suggest_assignee, get_my_work), which is genuinely useful. But there is no statement of when to call this instead of list_company_people or list_members, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required workspaceId.

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