get_people_accounts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the tool is read-only by nature (returns a list) but does not disclose pagination behavior (cursor parameter), rate limits, or any other side effects. The tip about getting peopleId is helpful but not sufficient for full transparency.

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 efficiently convey the core purpose and key additional context. The structure front-loads the main action and then adds prerequisites and filtering options without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits details about return format, pagination, and multiple filter parameters. An agent would struggle to use all features correctly without additional documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filters by role, two-factor authentication, and keyword for service/workspace names, but fails to explain many other parameters: limit, cursor, serviceIds, workspaceIds, sortBy, sortOrder, licenses, status. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 returns a list of SaaS accounts belonging to a person, specifying the verb 'Return' and the resource 'SaaS accounts'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on person-specific accounts, and even references how to obtain the peopleId from get_identities.

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 provides a clear use case (getting accounts for a person) and a prerequisite (peopleId from get_identities). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the context implies it's the appropriate tool for this purpose. However, it could mention alternatives like get_service_accounts.

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