List who can write on the publication

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the list includes roles and user IDs, which is useful, but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or whether the list includes pending contributors. With annotations present, this is adequate context.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful clarification. It is efficient and avoids waste, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers what the tool returns and why it's useful. It does not explain the return format in detail, but with no output schema, it provides enough for an agent to understand the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'publication' is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (people attached to the publication) and clarifies the output content (role and numeric user id). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_subscribers or get_user_profile by focusing on contributors with writing access.

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 explains the purpose in context ('who a post can be attributed to besides yourself'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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