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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful traits beyond that — the result set is paginated, and the default order is most-recently-active first — but says nothing about page-size limits, total counts, or whether filters affect ordering.

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 short sentences plus a heading line, with the behavioral detail (pagination, default ordering) front-loaded and no filler. The leading "List authors" line is redundant with the title and annotations, a minor waste.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential shape but leaves an agent unable to use the filtering and sorting parameters correctly, and gives no sense of the returned record structure beyond three named fields. Adequate to call, incomplete to call well.

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 effectively 0% for seven nested sub-parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. "The list is paginated" loosely implies page/pageSize, and "active most recently come first" implies the lastActive default, but sortBy's seven enum values, lastActiveDate, and memberSinceDate get no explanation anywhere.

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 authors of the project") and enumerates the fields returned (status, trust level, content metrics), which lets an agent separate it from write siblings like authors-update or authors-block. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the analytics-authors sibling, which plausibly overlaps.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb; there is no explicit "use this when..." statement, no exclusions, and no mention of when analytics-authors should be preferred. The default-ordering note gives a hint about intended behavior but is not routing guidance.

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