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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral content beyond that by disclosing the three-part structure of each row (role, individual override, effective permission) and defining the none/read/write levels. It does not mention ordering, pagination or whether all members are always returned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the workflow hook, then the level definitions. Each sentence earns its place, though the level glossary could arguably live in the schema rather than the description.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description properly carries the burden of describing the return content and does so at field level. It is nearly complete; only ordering, volume and pagination behavior are left unstated.

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 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description correctly implies a global, unfiltered listing rather than contradicting 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 ('Lista os membros da equipe') plus the precise scope: what each member can do, resource by resource, including role, individual override and resulting effective permission. That granularity distinguishes it from invite_team_member, update_team_member and update_team_member_permissions in the sibling list without needing the 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?

Explicitly tells the agent to run this before update_team_member_permissions in order to obtain the member_id and establish the current baseline — a concrete usage trigger tied to a named sibling. It stops short of stating when the tool is unnecessary or listing alternative listing routes, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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