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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so 'reading changes nothing' is mostly restatement. The real value added is the access constraint: only the account owner's API keys and connected apps can call this, and the plan must include team seats — context that shapes error handling and preconditions and is not in the annotations.

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 sentences, scope front-loaded before the authorization caveat. The phrase 'while the plan includes team seats' is slightly awkward and reads as a condition buried inside a clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, authorization and idempotent read semantics. The only omission is any pointer to the overlapping pending-invitation 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline applies: the empty schema plus output schema carries everything needed.

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 (team/people sharing the account), and enumerates exactly what comes back: owner, teammates and pending invitations, plus seat counts. An agent can tell this apart from write-side siblings like invite_team_member or remove_team_member without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a precondition (owner API keys only, plan must include team seats) which helps an agent predict when the call will fail, but never says when to prefer this over the adjacent list_pending_access or get_account tools. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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