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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only in nature (listing names and groups, never content), which implies a safe, non-destructive operation. It also discloses the scope limitation (no content access) and the optional filtering behavior. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple listing tool the behavioral context is reasonably complete.

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 with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second gives usage context, the third explains the optional parameter, and the fourth sets expectations about output scope. No wasted words.

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 simple listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it returns (people and groups), how to filter (by group), when to use it (before granting access), and what it excludes (content). It doesn't describe the exact return format or pagination, but those are minor gaps for this tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the group parameter ('to list just that group's members') and the token override semantics ('Usually omitted — supplied by the transport'). This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions and helps an agent understand when to pass each parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: listing people in the organization and groups with their memberships. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('org people and groups'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_org_docs and list_org_folders by explicitly scoping to people and groups only.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use it before granting access, so 'the team' resolves to actual people instead of a guess.' It also explains the optional group parameter usage ('Pass a group to see just its members') and clarifies what the tool does not return ('never anybody's content'), which helps an agent avoid using it for content-related queries.

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