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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description earns credit for the extra context it adds: the owner/admin-only authorization gate and the fact that last-active is tracked both on the website and through an AI agent. It stops short of disclosing pagination or result-size limits, which matter for a roster that can be large.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and ending with the exclusion and alternative. The middle sentence is a long run-on enumerating return fields, which is dense but every clause corresponds to a real output field, so no content is wasted.

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 carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so comprehensively for both the members array and the invitation/seat data. Combined with the permission gate and the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance and instead spends its words on return content, which is the right allocation here.

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 the team) and immediately enumerates the exact information it surfaces: members with role, scope, shared sites, join and last-active times, pending invitations, and seat counts. It also names the resource it is NOT (incident alert recipients), so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Opens with concrete user-intent triggers ('who has access', 'what roles', 'who was invited', 'how many seats are left') and closes with an explicit exclusion plus the correct alternative ('Not for who was alerted about an incident: use get_incident'). It also states the access precondition ('Owners and admins only').

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