List whom I may request for

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the authorization model behind the results, the degraded behavior when rules cannot be read (only the caller is listed), and that the result is not authoritative for the actual submit decision. It also hints at the return content (each person with the rules that allow it).

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then the chaining guidance, then caveats, which is the right order. It is dense but earns most of its sentences; the closing display-name instruction is somewhat tangential to listing but still useful guidance for the workflow it enables.

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 shape need not be explained, and the description still covers authorization semantics, fallback behavior, and follow-up usage. For a two-parameter, annotation-free list tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters (limit, query) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no detail about limit or query behavior; its identity-format note about display names versus OIDs concerns writes elsewhere rather than this tool's inputs.

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 the people the caller may request roles for") plus the mechanism (midPoint request rules / #assign authorizations). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_requestable_roles and list_my_teammates because it describes whose identities are returned and why.

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?

Gives explicit downstream usage: pass a returned person as forUser to list_requestable_roles and as userOid to request_role, which establishes a clear workflow. It also warns that midPoint still decides on submit, so the list is advisory. It does not say when to prefer this over siblings like whoami or list_my_team, so no explicit exclusions.

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