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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds operational context: it filters to 'active members' and includes a critical security warning about treating CRM field values as untrusted data. This goes beyond the annotations by addressing data handling, which is valuable for correct usage.

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 concise and front-loaded. The primary purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by essential usage guidance and a security note. There is no redundancy or fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and data safety. It implies the output is a list of members with ids. It could explicitly state the return format, but the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation. Minor gap in not describing the exact fields returned, but not critical.

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?

The input schema already documents workspaceId with full coverage (100%). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the schema is self-sufficient. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no compensation needed.

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 action: 'Lists active members available for ownership and assignment.' It identifies the specific resource (active members) and the purpose (ownership/assignment), and even explains the output's use for downstream tools, making it distinct from other list tools like list_records or list_activities.

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 explicitly instructs the agent on when to use the tool: 'Use the returned member id for assign_record_owner, assign_activity, create_task and create_activity.' It also provides a strong directive to never invent or misuse ids, which guides the agent's behavior. Though it doesn't mention alternatives, the usage context is unambiguous.

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