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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the owner-only permission requirement and the meaning of a 'none' value (the project is hidden from that member), which is exactly the interpretive context needed to read the result correctly.

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 short sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and the non-obvious 'none' semantics and authorization constraint packed into a compact parenthetical plus clause. No filler or restatement of the title.

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, so the description bears some burden for return values, and it does explain the sentinel 'none' case and that results are per member. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is nearly sufficient; it only stops short of describing the shape of each member entry.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('The project id'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only reaffirms the single-project scope ('on one project') without adding format, source, or lookup guidance beyond that, which is the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Show') and a precisely scoped resource: each member's workspace role and effective role for a single project. The 'effective role' detail distinguishes it from a plain membership listing, though it doesn't name the neighboring get_member_access / set_project_access tools to complete the contrast.

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?

'Workspace owners only' gives a clear authorization precondition for when this tool can be used at all. However, it offers no routing guidance against the similar-sounding get_member_access (per-member) or set_project_access (mutation), leaving the agent to infer which access-inspection tool to pick.

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