List people

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine scope context beyond that: whose data is visible, that per-user account/trip access grants are included, and that each person's account count is reported. It does not mention pagination or result-size limits, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the population definitions and return values. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full load and does explain what comes back (userId, memberId, access grants, account counts). It omits any note on result size, ordering, or pagination, which is a minor but real gap for a list endpoint.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly spends no space restating parameter semantics and instead documents the output identifiers.

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 (Lists) and resource (people), and crisply enumerates the two populations covered: connected AwardWallet users and members added in the business interface. It also names the key returned identifiers (userId, memberId), making it distinguishable from account-oriented siblings like list_loyalty_accounts.

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 clearly implied by 'Returns the userId and memberId values other tools accept', which tells the agent this is the entry point for obtaining identifiers needed elsewhere. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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