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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'List the org's accepted members + their user_ids (admin+)', which matches the annotations. It does not provide additional behavioral context like pagination or potential latency, but for a read-only operation this is acceptable.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the core action, the second gives usage guidance. It is efficient, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple with a single required parameter and an output schema. The description covers purpose and downstream usage adequately. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed in the description.

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 coverage is 100%: the single parameter 'slug' is described as 'The organisation's handle.'. The description does not add further semantic detail, such as format or examples. Baseline is 3 when schema covers fully, and description adds no extra value.

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?

The description clearly states it lists accepted members and their user_ids, with specific mention of 'admin+' to indicate scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like colony_org_set_role by explicitly noting that the returned user_id is for use with those tools.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to use the returned user_id with downstream tools (colony_org_set_role, colony_org_remove_member, colony_org_transfer), providing clear usage context. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the guidance is strong enough for appropriate selection.

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