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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so restating 'Read-only' is redundant, but the description earns credit elsewhere: the 'members are contacts, never targets — becoming a target is the sourcer's proposal' line is genuine domain semantics that prevent an agent from misusing roster members as outreach targets. It still doesn't cover scoping, volume, or what happens with the companyId beyond what the schema says.

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 compact sentences with the roster contents front-loaded and the semantic caveat following. The parenthetical platform list is long but informative rather than wasteful; every clause contributes.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers scope, contents, and the key conceptual distinction an agent needs. The remaining gap is that it never routes the agent between this tool and its singular/related network siblings.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter burden and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no information about what companyId means or how it scopes the returned rosters.

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 pair ('chat groups ... as rosters') and enumerates the platforms covered, giving a concrete picture of the returned data. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like fundraising_get_network_group, fundraising_list_chat_threads, or fundraising_list_network_people, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent can infer this is the enumeration counterpart to the singular get_network_group, but nothing is said explicitly. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives appear, and the sibling list is dense enough that this omission matters.

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