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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context about bounded pagination, excluded fields, and organizational scope, which go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is stated first, followed by exclusions and cursor guidance, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 listing tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, its organizational scope, paging behavior, and excluded fields. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, with both limit and cursor already described in the schema. The description reinforces the cursor's purpose but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema fields.

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: 'List a bounded page of display names and roles for members of the signed-in organization.' It also clarifies what is not included (emails, ids, phone numbers, etc.) and distinguishes itself from the sibling list tools by describing a distinct resource and output focus.

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 clearly communicates the organizational scope and the pagination usage ('Use the opaque cursor to continue'). It does not explicitly provide exclusionary guidance versus alternatives, but the resource is distinct enough from all siblings that no confusion is likely.

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