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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the fields returned (display name + roles), the explicit exclusion of emails/phone numbers/user ids, and the 25-per-page default.

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 tight sentences: trigger first, then return shape/pagination, then the exclusion. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value detail is not the description's burden, yet it still flags the field-level privacy scope. Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both limit and cursor are already fully documented in the schema. The description's '25 per page by default' restates the schema default rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list the display names and assigned roles of members') and scopes it to the connected Imagelato organization. No sibling tool is named list_team_members or overlaps with this resource, so no further differentiation is required.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants to list...') and adds a negative boundary ('Not for inviting or removing members'). It does not name a concrete alternative tool, which is a minor gap given the sibling list contains no member-management tools anyway.

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