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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context that the tool lists 'accepted members' (implying only approved ones) and mentions 'admin+' (likely meaning including admins). This adds value beyond annotations by clarifying the scope of returned data.

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 consists of two concise sentences, both earning their place: the first states the action and output, the second provides usage guidance. No extraneous text, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the results with sibling tools. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'slug' with description 'The organisation's handle.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description already fully documents the parameter. The tool description does not add additional semantic detail about the slug parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List the org's accepted members + their user_ids', specifying the verb (list), resource (org's accepted members), and output (user_ids). It distinguishes from siblings like colony_org_get and the role/member/transfer tools by explicitly mentioning how the returned user_ids are used with specific sibling 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 says to use the returned user_id with colony_org_set_role, colony_org_remove_member, and colony_org_transfer, providing a clear usage context. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is well-defined.

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