Kooperativa: person colleagues

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It is transparent that this is a read-only listing of current colleagues, excludes the person themselves ('everyone else'), and is limited to the profile's current company. It does not go into pagination limits or error cases, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 two sentences and front-loads the action and scope immediately. The use-case sentence earns its place by helping with tool selection, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 required parameter, the description covers purpose, scope, and input provenance. It doesn't describe the return format, and there is no output schema, but the fact that it returns current colleagues is strongly implied by the definition; only minor details like pagination 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 description coverage is only 33% because only the id parameter has a description. The description adds value by telling the agent where to obtain the id (from enrich_person or search_people), but it does not explain page or per_page beyond their schema defaults, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'List a person's current colleagues.' It also refines the scope with '(everyone else working at their current company right now)', which clearly distinguishes this from related sibling tools like company_current_employees or person_job_changes.

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?

It states concrete use cases ('mapping org structure or finding an alternate contact at a target account') and gives the prerequisite input source, the Kooperativa profile id from enrich_person or search_people. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the highest bar.

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