List people and app access

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behavior context beyond those flags: it reads from local files, requires no credential, and sends no invitations, which usefully clarifies auth and side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with exactly what data is read, followed by the operational constraints. There is no filler or redundancy, and every clause addresses what an agent needs to know.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the missing runtime context: local file source, no credential requirement, and no side effects. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits explicit routing guidance to sibling tools.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage for an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 read verb and enumerates the resources returned (people, app grants, absolute deadlines, revocation tombstones) plus the data source (local files). The phrase 'writes nothing' implicitly distinguishes it from write siblings such as people_grant and people_revoke, so an agent can identify this as the read-only listing tool.

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 scopes the tool by stating no credential is needed and that it sends no invitations or writes, which implies a safe read-only use case. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over siblings like list or people_grant, leaving usage to inference.

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