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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses ordering (oldest first, owner typically first), the invariant that is_owner cannot be removed, the meaning of is_current_user, and the visibility rule tied to invitation acceptance. This is genuine behavioral context an agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the key routing note, and every clause earns its place. The field enumeration is long, but it substitutes for a missing output schema, so it is justified rather than padding.

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 compensates by listing return fields, ordering, pagination, and the invitation-acceptance visibility rule. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 both parameters (page, page_size with defaults and max) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the existence of 'pagination meta', which is marginal; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 ('List every user who can currently access the authenticated customer account') plus the payload scope (panel roles). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling list_invite_requests, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-alternative rule: accepted users appear here, unaccepted invitees appear in list_invite_requests. It even spells out the invite lifecycle (create_invite_request -> accept -> appears here), leaving nothing to inference.

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