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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the 'active members' filter (inactive members excluded), the included role field, and a prompt-injection warning that CRM values are untrusted data — meaningful behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with zero repetition of the title or the annotation fields. The final security note is somewhat boilerplate but is compact and directly relevant to a tool returning user-entered CRM data.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it says members plus role are returned and identifies the two ID fields (memberId, userId) and where each is consumed. Combined with the untrusted-content caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and use the result.

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%, and the single workspaceId parameter is fully documented in the schema including the multi-workspace condition. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 with scope qualifiers: 'Lists the workspace's active members with their role.' The 'active' qualifier and the fact that role is included distinguish it from adjacent tools like list_invitations and get_member_access without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance for the values it returns: 'Use memberId in change_member_role, remove_member and the member permission tools; use userId in set_pipeline_access.' This tells the agent how this tool fits into a workflow, though it does not state an explicit condition for choosing this tool over get_member_access or list_invitations.

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