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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: the exclusion of the user, name sorting, cursor pagination, and the empty-with-note behavior on solo plans or when team notes are disabled.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, scope, search behavior, pagination, and edge cases are all covered in a few efficient sentences with no wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does enough for an agent to call the tool correctly: it covers search, pagination, sorting, and empty states. It stops short of describing the returned fields and omits `limit`, so it is not fully complete.

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 must compensate. It explains `q` matching the start of a first or last name or email, and explains `cursor` as the next_cursor value, but it never mentions `limit`, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in prose.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List team members'), clarifies that it excludes the user, and states the sort order. An agent can immediately tell this is a read-only teammate listing, distinct from the other list/search 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?

It gives a concrete use case ('so you can mention them on a team note') and explains the empty-state conditions for solo plans or disabled team notes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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