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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read, but the description adds significant behavioral context: the output represents the team roster from settings, the meaning of the id for downstream tools, and what it does NOT include (card authorship). This goes well beyond the minimal annotation.

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?

The description is two dense sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the return type and fields, then provides usage context and edge-case handling. Every sentence adds value and the structure is easy to scan.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return fields, role enum, downstream usage, team_id omission rule, and a distinction from card authorship. It is entirely adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% for team_id, including the prerequisite to call retro.teams.list first. The tool description repeats this information without adding new parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool returns team members with specific fields (id, name, role) and explicitly distinguishes it from card authorship, which aligns with sibling tools like retro.board.actions.list. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'members of a team' make the purpose unequivocal.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use the id as assign_to in retro.actions.create, retro.actions.update and retro.board.suggested_actions.promote.' Also gives a clear exclusion: 'it says nothing about who wrote which card' and advises on team_id handling ('Pass team_id when several teams are available; with a single team it can be omitted').

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