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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the READ-ONLY note adds little new information. The description contributes the 'active member' filter and role/seat-count fields, which is useful context, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or failure behavior. This is acceptable for a zero-parameter read-only list but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and returned fields with no filler. The redundant READ-ONLY note does not meaningfully hurt conciseness.

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 zero parameters and an output schema handling return values, the description covers everything an agent needs in order to invoke the tool correctly. It specifies what entities are listed, the membership criterion, and the key fields returned.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description has no parameter semantics to add. There is nothing unclear about invocation inputs.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('organizations you are an active member of'), and adds concrete output details: role and seat count. The 'active member' scope also clearly differentiates it from related tools like findagent_get_org or findagent_list_members.

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 makes the context clear: use this when you need a read-only view of your active org memberships with your role and seat usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is evident enough for an agent to distinguish it from sibling org-related tools.

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