listUnclaimed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It conveys that the tool lists unclaimed people, filtered to those in ponds and not assigned. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior, ordering, or what constitutes 'unclaimed', nor does it explain the domain term 'pond'. It is not misleading and provides the key filter.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. No wasted words.

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 paginated list tool, the description covers the core purpose and scope, but it omits any explanation of the 'ponds' concept and does not describe the return value format (no output schema exists). Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (limit and offset) with full coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'unclaimed people', with the parenthetical clarifying scope ('in ponds, not assigned'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listPeople (which likely lists all people) and claimPerson (which claims people).

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 implies the use case: retrieving unclaimed people within ponds. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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