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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add scope context — which it does by specifying the listing is limited to the active workspace's members. Because no output schema exists, the field enumeration is genuinely useful behavioral detail; only pagination/inactive-user handling is left unstated.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The resource and returned fields come first, and the actionable use case follows immediately — well 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields, plus it explains why an agent would call it. Minor gaps remain: whether inactive or guest members are included, and whether the result is ordered or 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 there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description confirms no filtering is required, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 members of the active workspace') and enumerates the fields returned (id, username, email, role, capacity, availability). The 'active workspace' scoping makes it distinguishable from get_user (single user) and list_project_guests (project scope) without opening either schema.

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?

'Use this to resolve the integer user id needed for task assignment' gives an explicit, actionable trigger for calling the tool. It stops short of naming when not to use it (e.g. for a single user by id, use get_user), so it lacks full alternative routing.

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