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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that linked agents share memberships and are not counted as additional people — but omits behavior for non-private spaces and doesn't mention pagination, despite space_id allowing both 's_' and 'o_' prefixes.

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 short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and following with the one non-obvious scoping rule. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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, so return-value explanation is not required, and the schema's min/max and pattern constraints partly self-document limit and space_id. Still missing is any mention of pagination as a mode of use and whether non-private spaces are valid inputs, which matters for a three-parameter listing tool.

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 only 33% — only cursor is documented in the schema. The description says nothing about limit, cursor, or space_id, so it fails to compensate for the gap; it does not clarify whether a public-space id is accepted given the 'private Space' framing.

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 and resource ('List the people in a private Space') and disambiguates the result set by noting linked agents are not counted as separate people. This implicitly separates it from sibling space_list_actors, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation requires inference.

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 the scope 'private Space' — an agent can infer this is for enumerating human members rather than agents. However, there is no statement of when to prefer space_list_actors, space_get, or space_list_invitations, and no prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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