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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the result set is permission-filtered ('A key limited to some agents sees only those agents in `agent_ids`') and ordered by join date, which affects how an agent should interpret and present results.

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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with scope and ordering before the invitation caveat; almost every clause carries information. The opening line merely restates the tool title, which is the only wasted space.

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 compensates by describing the return contents (role, email, openable agents), the ordering, and the exclusion of pending invitations. For a parameterless read-only listing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mentions of `all_agents` and `agent_ids` refer to response fields rather than inputs, and it neither invents nor mischaracterizes any parameter.

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 your organization's members') and scopes it precisely to 'everyone in the organization that owns the key, earliest to join first'. It also enumerates the returned fields (role, email, agents), so an agent knows exactly what this call yields versus a generic listing sibling.

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 an explicit exclusion rule: 'Pending invitations are not members: `listInvitations` lists them', which routes the agent away from this tool for that need. It does not, however, contrast itself with the adjacent `list_agent_members` sibling, so the when-to-use guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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