List who can write on the publication

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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile. The description adds useful context beyond that by stating that results contain roles and numeric user ids, and by explaining that the id is what a byline needs. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for this simple read-only tool.

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, front-loaded with the core operation and returned data, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the practical byline use. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool, the definition is complete: the schema documents the parameter, annotations cover safety and idempotence, and the description explains the output contents and why the returned id matters. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently communicates what the caller receives.

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 single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema, including loose hostname matching and the default behavior ('Defaults to the first connected publication'). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline for full schema coverage applies.

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 title and description both use a specific verb ('List') and resource ('who can write on the publication'), and the first sentence specifies the returned fields: role and numeric user id. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_subscribers, which target a different audience.

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 second sentence gives a concrete use case: 'this is how you find out who a post can be attributed to besides yourself.' This provides clear context for when the tool is useful, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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