List People Lists

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the return format options (markdown/json), error message format ('Error: ...'), and that it returns specific fields (name, description, status, total count).

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter details in a bullet-like format, and return/error information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema needed, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, parameters, return format options, error handling, and specific return fields, making it fully adequate for agent use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only restating parameter names and default values without providing additional semantic context. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 resource ('smart lists (saved filters) in Planning Center People'), specifying that these are saved filters rather than raw people data. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pco_list_people' which lists actual people, not saved filter lists.

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 implies usage context by specifying it's for 'smart lists (saved filters)' in Planning Center People, which suggests when to use it versus raw people listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use alternatives or prerequisites, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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