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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds useful domain behavior about agent memberships not counting as additional people, but it does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or permission requirements.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main scope is front-loaded, and the agent-membership clarification earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, which lowers the burden. Still, for a three-parameter list tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves pagination and parameter behavior unexplained and does not explicitly route the agent between this and sibling listing tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only implies that space_id is relevant by saying 'in a private Space' and provides no meaning for limit or cursor, nor any pagination guidance.

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 accepted humans in a private Space. It also clarifies that delegated agents share memberships and are not additional people, which helps distinguish this from a generic actor listing. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'accepted humans' and the note that delegated agents do not count as additional people, which distinguishes this from invitation or actor listings. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative tool guidance.

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