List my managers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden, and it does disclose a meaningful constraint: results are scoped to orgs the authenticated user belongs to, so it cannot be used to look up arbitrary reporting lines. It says nothing about permissions needed, ordering, or what happens with zero managers, and the limit/pagination behavior is left entirely 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in a single tight clause with the key scoping detail immediately after. The trailing display-name convention sentence is relevant to consuming the output but reads as global style advice rather than tool-specific information, so it is slightly off-purpose.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers what it returns, whose perspective it uses, and how to reference the resulting people. Nothing essential is missing, though a note on ordering or empty results would round it out.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('maximum results, default 20, max 100'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no extra meaning about the limit, which is acceptable given the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('List who the authenticated user reports to') and further narrows the semantics to 'the managers of the orgs they are a member of', which separates it in spirit from list_my_team/list_my_teammates. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement (the authenticated user's own reporting line), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives like list_my_team or get_user. The second sentence is guidance, but about naming conventions when writing rather than about selecting this tool.

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