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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the exact response shape, field meanings including role and status enums, ordering by join time, inclusion of the caller flagged with 'is_you', and the solo-user edge case returning an empty list. This is valuable behavioral context not available from the schema or annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then the return object, then edge cases. Every sentence adds necessary information, and nothing is redundant or extraneous.

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 explaining the return value. It lists all returned fields, their value constraints, ordering, the caller's inclusion, and the empty-list edge case, making the tool fully understandable for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is complete with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing to document. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead of inventing parameter guidance, warranting the baseline score for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists 'the caller's active-workspace teammates.' It further clarifies scope by comparing it to 'the same roster the Team page shows,' making the tool's purpose immediately distinct from sibling tools like list_team_shared_agents or list_tasks.

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?

The description makes the intended use clear: retrieving the current workspace's teammate roster. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the uniqueness of the resource and the clear scope provide sufficient context for an agent to select it.

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