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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest: it discloses the required capability scope (team.read_own), which is a genuine authorization fact not present in structured fields, and clarifies that pending invites are surfaced alongside joined members. It does not cover return format or what happens when the key spans multiple companies, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource named first and the capability tag trailing in parentheses; nothing is redundant. The trade-off is a telegraphic noun-phrase style that reads as a contents list rather than a stated action.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description is sufficient: it covers the roster contents, pending-invite nuance, the size limit, and the permission scope. The absence of an output schema is partly offset by the description effectively describing return values.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully explains the optional 'company' domain argument. The description adds nothing about that parameter, which is acceptable here but is the baseline rather than added value.

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 names the resource (the team) and enumerates exactly what is returned: owner, members, joined vs pending invites, and the size limit. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like invite_member or remove_member, though it never states an explicit verb and does not name any sibling by way of contrast.

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 enumerated return contents: an agent can infer you call this to inspect team composition before inviting or removing a member. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no pointer to alternatives such as list_companies or redeem_invite.

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