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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces that with 'Read-only: your team is managed in the dashboard' plus ordering ('earliest to join first') and the eligibility semantics of can_open_agent. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about result size or pagination.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, and each sentence carries information (ordering, eligibility, ID-resolution rationale, read-only note). The opening line duplicates the title verbatim, which costs a little, but nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return shape: ordering, the can_open_agent flag, and the user_id-to-name resolution use case. Coverage of the remaining returned fields and result size is left implicit, so it is not fully complete.

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 100%, and the single agent_id parameter already documents the 404/403 failure modes in detail. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format information, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven coverage applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List teammates for an agent') and it disambiguates scope by naming the returned eligibility flag. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_organization_members, which is the closest alternative, 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?

Gives concrete context for when this is useful: resolving a teammate's user_id seen on a lead (assigned_to) or note (author_id) back to a name. It also notes people who cannot open the agent are still returned, which prevents misuse. No explicit alternative tool is named, so not a 5.

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