growsurf_list_participants

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: paging order ('newest page first'), the limit default (10), and how to continue paging. It also clarifies campaign targeting fallback. This exceeds the safety-only profile provided by annotations, though it could mention rate limits or response shape (but output schema exists).

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, zero fluff. The main purpose and paging instruction are front-loaded; the targeting nuance follows. Every clause earns its place, and the description is easy to scan.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's read-only nature, the description covers all necessary operational knowledge: paging, limit bounds/default, campaign targeting, and a use-case trigger. The agent can correctly invoke this tool without ambiguity.

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 67% (limit lacks a description). The description compensates by giving the default limit (10) and the paging semantics for nextId ('Participant ID returned as nextId from the previous page' — though schema says the same). It also explains campaignId's fallback to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID and how to use it with growsurf_create_campaign. This adds real value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('participants in your GrowSurf program'), and a key behavior ('newest page first'). It immediately distinguishes itself from participant-scoped tools like growsurf_get_participant by focusing on listing. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when you need a participant ID before calling participant-scoped tools.' Also explains paging behavior (pass nextId) and how targeting works (campaignId or default). This gives clear context and implicitly contrasts with alternatives like growsurf_list_campaigns.

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