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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the required authorization level (Owner/Admin) and carries a substantive caution ('Never infer permission from a role name alone'). That permission caveat is behavior an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, then the optional-parameter trigger, then a warning. Nothing is redundant and the ordering matches how an agent reads it.

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 output schema, the description does enough by naming the returned entities (members, invitations, available actions) and the permission context. It stops short of describing pagination or result shape, but for a small two-parameter read tool that gap is minor.

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 coverage is only 50%: accountId is documented in-schema, while includeWorkspaceGrantEditing has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that the flag yields membership versions and workspace choices, which is exactly the missing semantic. accountId's 'never a personal platformId' rule is already handled in the 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 ('Read') and enumerated resources (Account members, invitations, available actions), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the near-neighbor sibling company_list_workspace_members, leaving scope disambiguation to inference.

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?

Provides the precondition 'as Owner/Admin' and a conditional trigger for includeWorkspaceGrantEditing, which is useful usage context. However, it offers no explicit exclusion or named alternative (e.g. use company_list_workspace_members for workspace-scoped member lists), so routing between siblings remains implicit.

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