get_participants

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields (ID, name, session IDs, completion status) and implies read-only behavior through 'List' and 'Returns.' It lacks explicit note on side effects, pagination, or error handling, but the provided detail is meaningful and goes beyond the tool name.

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 concisely structured into three clear sections: purpose, usage guidance, and parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the most important usage signal ('Call this first') is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides complete context: what it returns, who depends on it, and what the argument means. It covers all necessary information without over-explaining, fully fitting the tool's complexity.

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 schema has no parameter description (coverage 0%), but the tool description includes an Args section explaining 'study_id: The unique identifier of the study.' This adds needed semantic meaning for the single parameter, though it is somewhat generic and could mention format or example.

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 begins with 'List all participants in a study' using a specific verb and resource, and adds context about session status and metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session or get_sessions_report, which focus on sessions rather than the participant roster.

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 explicitly states 'Call this first whenever you need participant_id or session_id values' and lists dependent tools, giving strong when-to-use guidance. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the clear prerequisite covers most needs.

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