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 value beyond that with the caveat 'Names are not included', which tells the agent it will get IDs only and must resolve names elsewhere — a non-obvious behavioral constraint. It does not cover pagination or the behavior of an empty team.

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 sentences; the core action is front-loaded and the field list plus the 'names are not included' caveat follow without padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so restating return fields is arguably optional (though the field list is a helpful summary). The significant gap is the total silence on the two input parameters, especially the ambiguous 'firm_id' default, which leaves an agent unsure how to scope the call.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, yet it says nothing about 'client_id' or 'firm_id'. The 'firm_id' parameter in particular has a default of empty string and an undocumented role (filter? scope? inferred?), which the description should clarify but does not.

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 the firm members assigned to a client') and then enumerates exactly which fields come back, so the agent knows precisely what this returns. It is also clearly a read operation, distinguishing it from the sibling mutator 'assign_team_member'.

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 usage is implied by the verb and resource — an agent can infer this is the way to inspect team assignments — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling is named (e.g., the relationship to 'assign_team_member' or 'get_client_dossier' is left to inference).

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