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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the earliest-to-join-first ordering and the `can_open_agent` access-gating rule that determines assignability, plus the read-only assertion that confirms 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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers sort order, the `can_open_agent` semantics, the rationale for listing non-openers, and the read-only note. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess at.

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 useful work naming the returned concept (`can_open_agent`) and the id fields (`user_id`, `assigned_to`, `author_id`). It stops short of enumerating the full member payload, but it is complete enough to call and interpret correctly.

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 its UUID format and the 404/403 failure modes. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for full schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list teammates for an agent) and immediately scopes it to the whole organization in join order. It also distinguishes itself from mutation siblings by naming `inviteMember`, `updateOrganizationMember` and `removeOrganizationMember` as the tools that change the team.

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 clear context for when to reach for this list: to resolve a lead's `assigned_to` or a note's `author_id` to a name, and to know who can be assigned work. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling `list_organization_members`, leaving that routing to inference.

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