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

Annotations already mark this read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it explains the visibility-dependent membership logic, enforces that only returned ids are valid assignees, and notes one project per call. These are non-obvious traits an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 with no fluff: purpose is front-loaded, the membership rule follows, and the actionable guardrail comes last. Every sentence earns its place, and 'Read-only' is the only minor redundancy with annotations.

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 read-only, single-project lookup with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how membership is determined, and how to use the results correctly. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents project_id and include_email well. The description reinforces the assignee_id relationship but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the people on this project with their ids.' It also clarifies the two possible membership sources (explicit members or task assignees), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns and how it differs from the other get_project_* siblings.

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?

Clear context is given: use the returned id as assignee_id in create_task or update_task, never guess an id, and never assign work outside the returned set. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but no sibling tool competes for this purpose, so the guidance is sufficient.

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