list_examinees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds significant behavior beyond the annotations: 'newest first' ordering, sensitive auth fields never returned, and the examineeId being returned unmasked for use in other tools. This is valuable context that an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope, data exclusion behavior, and routing to related tools. The key outcome 'newest first' is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 list tool with an output schema already describing the response shape, the description completes the picture: it defines the resource, the team scope, ordering, sensitive-field redaction, and how the returned ID feeds into sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool correctly is 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 100%, with each parameter (limit, search, status) already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level details such as formats or defaults — it focuses on result behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'examinees', and even clarifies synonyms ('respondents'). It distinguishes itself from get_examinee by indicating that this returns a list while get_examinee returns full detail, making sibling differentiation explicit.

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 explicitly states when to use an alternative: 'Use get_examinee for one examinee's full detail including customData.' It also scopes usage to the current team and notes the returned examineeId as the input for get_examinee/update_examinee, giving clear routing guidance.

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