List B2match participants

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: only public participants are returned, and the default response is a compact summary unless detail=true. It says nothing about pagination limits or rate behavior, which the schema only partially covers.

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 short sentences, zero waste, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the alternatives. Every clause earns its place.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, default vs. detailed output, and the sibling alternative; pagination is handled by the schema's after/first descriptions. Only the undocumented query parameter and any rate/limit behavior are 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 60%, and the description compensates for the most consequential gap by explaining what detail=true actually changes (compact summary vs. fuller record). The query parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description, which keeps this short of a 5.

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 (List) and resource (participants), plus a scoping qualifier (public) and output shape (compact summary). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling get_participant, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

Names two clear alternatives with their selecting conditions: set detail=true for the fuller record, use get_participant for a single profile. That is strong routing guidance, but it offers no explicit when-not-to-use case (e.g., versus list_session_attendees for a session-scoped roster).

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