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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: emails come back masked (a privacy constraint on what the agent can do with results) and the result includes invited as well as active members plus a plan-allowed count. Return shape and ordering are not described, but no output schema exists and the field list largely compensates.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; the resource and scope come first, followed by the returned fields and the plan-limit detail. It is telegraphic rather than prose — readable but slightly compressed, with semicolon-separated field lists that take a moment to parse.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so field by field, including the masked email and the plan-capacity figure. Minor gaps remain: no indication of ordering, whether status values are fixed, or whether the list is ever truncated.

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 does not need to explain inputs, and the one identifier it mentions (member id) is described as an output field consumed by revoke_cashier rather than an input, which is correct and unambiguous.

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 names a specific resource — the shop's cashiers, scoped to 'active and invited' — and enumerates the returned fields (member id, display name, masked email, status, branches, plan limit). It implicitly separates itself from revoke_cashier by noting the member id is what that tool consumes. It stops short of 5 only because it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb stating the operation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion; guidance is only implied by the parenthetical '(for revoke_cashier)', which signals this is the source of the id needed for revocation. An agent can infer the tool is for listing/enumerating team members, but nothing tells it when another sibling (e.g. list_branches or get_shop_summary) would be preferred.

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