List access that ends soon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the authorization model (each person is read as the caller, so midPoint's visibility rules decide what is returned) and the fallback behavior for hidden people (listed by OID). Ordering is also stated. Pagination, limits, and error behavior are not covered, keeping it below a 5.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and information-dense, but the closing sentence about naming people, roles, and requests by display name is guidance for write tools, not for this read-only listing, so it does not earn its place here. The single run-on sentence with embedded clauses also makes the key facts harder to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description covers scope, ordering, and visibility semantics well. What remains unaddressed is result volume behavior — pagination or truncation — which matters for a listing that spans the caller plus every report they manage.

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%, including the days default/max and includeSelf's meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only indirect context — that the listing is for the caller and their reports — without clarifying units, boundaries, or how includeSelf interacts with the visibility model. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — assignments ending within N days — plus the exact scope (caller plus direct reports, defined as the org members returned by list_my_team) and sort order (soonest first). The result shape it promises (whose access, which role, when it ends) makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_my_access or get_user_assignments, which cover different scopes.

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 expiring-access framing implies when to reach for it, and the parenthetical ties the team scope back to list_my_team, which is useful routing. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no statement of which sibling to prefer for non-expiring or all-time assignment listings (get_user_assignments, get_my_access). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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