list_people

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds transparency about filtering capabilities (by company, project membership, active status, email) which helps the agent understand behavior beyond the annotation flags. No contradictions.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides use cases and filter summary. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but flagged as true) and annotations cover safety, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, why to use it, and what filters are available. No gaps for a list tool with 6 well-documented parameters.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by naming the filter types (company, project membership, etc.), but this largely mirrors the schema properties. It does not provide additional syntax or context beyond what the schema already offers.

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 it lists people (team members) in the organization, with the specific purpose of finding person IDs for task assignment, time entries, and filtering. This directly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_person' tool which would return a single person's details.

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 tells when to use it (to find person IDs for task assignment, time entries, and filtering) and lists the supported filters. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or mention of alternatives like 'get_person', but the context is clear enough that an agent would infer when this list tool is appropriate.

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