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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden. It usefully discloses that pending invitations are included and that the response is trimmed to identifiers and roles, which helps the agent interpret results. It omits permissions requirements, whether results are paginated or truncated, and whether inactive members are excluded beyond the word 'active'.

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 resource and return projection are front-loaded, and the usage trigger follows immediately. No filler.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only listing with no output schema, the description supplies what is needed: scope, what is returned, and a concrete use case. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents notification_message. The description adds nothing about it — notably it never explains why a read-only listing has a fallback-message parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 active App Store Connect team members and pending email invitations') plus the exact projection returned ('identifier (email/username) and roles'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like invite_asc_team_member or invite_testflight_testers.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it: 'Use before internal TestFlight distribution to confirm someone is on the team and has a TestFlight-eligible role.' It gives clear context but doesn't name alternatives or say when not to use it (e.g. vs. list_asc_api_keys or session_status).

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