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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that roles are included in the result, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether archived/suspended members appear, which for a read listing tool would be genuinely useful.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, correctly leading with the action and the returned entity. It is terse to the point of omitting useful detail, but nothing present is filler.

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 one-parameter read-only listing with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the required identifier unexplained and gives no sense of result shape beyond 'roles'. A sentence on what a member record contains or how results are scoped would close the gap.

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 0% and the single companyId parameter carries no description in the schema. The description refers vaguely to 'a company' but never explains that companyId is the required UUID identifier, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (list) and resource (people who can access a company) plus a scope hint ('with their roles'). The 'list' verb naturally separates it from members_invite/members_remove/members_set_role, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (members_invite, members_remove, members_set_role) that an agent must choose between. The agent must infer routing entirely from the verb.

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