io_list_visitors

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, and the second sentence merely restates capabilities the schema fully documents. Nothing is added about default response shape, whether pagination is offset-based, or any rate/size constraints beyond what the schema's 100-item cap already says.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence is close to redundant against the schema, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and nine optional params, the description is minimally sufficient: annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers every parameter. It stops short of telling the agent what a result looks like or how the compact/full view interacts with pagination, which would help.

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 description coverage is 100% and every one of the nine parameters is documented inline (including the view enum tradeoffs), so the schema carries the param burden. The description contributes only generic category names (search, date filtering, pagination) with no format or semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3 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 verb and resource ("List iOffice visitors") and the capability scope (search, date filtering, pagination). It is clearly distinct from the sibling io_get_visitor, though it never names that sibling or the other visitor tools (create/update/checkin/checkout) to sharpen the boundary.

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 lists capabilities but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing advice versus io_get_visitor or the visitor mutation tools. "Supports search, date filtering, and pagination" describes what the tool can do, not when to reach for it.

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