list-people

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the 'List' verb is consistent with that. The description adds the endpoint (GET /api/public/sales/people) and scope (sales:read), which go beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination defaults, ordering, or response envelope behavior, so it adds modest but not rich behavioral 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?

Two compact segments—'List sales people/contacts' plus endpoint and scope—with zero filler. The primary verb and resource are front-loaded and every word contributes information.

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 simple, required-parameter-free list tool with 100% schema coverage and readOnly annotations, the description covers the essential extra context: the exact API endpoint and the required scope. The main gap is that the result format and pagination behavior are left implicit, but that is acceptable for a straightforward list tool with no output schema.

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 all three parameters (q, page, itemsPerPage) are already documented with descriptions and defaults in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying what 'q' would search against ('sales people/contacts'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List sales people/contacts', and adds concrete context with the HTTP endpoint and required scope. It is clearly a read operation on a distinct resource. However, with many sibling list tools (list-members, list-customers, list-crm-leads), it does not explicitly differentiate when this tool is the right one for sales people vs those others.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no when/when-not conditions and names no sibling tools, so an agent must infer from the name alone that this is the choice for sales people rather than customers, members, or CRM leads.

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