persons_list_permitted_users

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the logic (visibility, roles, teams, sharing rules) and the structure of each entry (user ID, name, email, access level, source). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention rate limits, but the behavioral context is detailed enough to understand what the tool does.

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?

The description is well-structured with bullet points for what is returned and use cases. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds value without redundancy. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides ample context about the return values, logic, and use cases. It adequately addresses what the agent needs to know to use the tool correctly.

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 100% coverage with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Person ID'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists users permitted to access a person, specifying the resource (person) and action (list permitted users). The title 'persons_list_permitted_users' is unambiguous, and the description provides additional context about what is returned and why.

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 use cases (security auditing, access management, etc.) and notes dependency on visibility settings, giving the agent context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other entities, but the context provided is sufficient for most scenarios.

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