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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the auth constraint ('Company owners only'), the composition of results (members plus pending invites), and the status values 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then the scope and access constraint. Efficient with no filler, though packing the return fields into the same sentence makes it slightly heavy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the returned fields and statuses. With one optional parameter fully documented in the schema and the access constraint stated, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and already documents the slug/id format, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantics the schema lacks: that omitting the parameter widens the result to every company the caller owns, which is meaningful optional-parameter behavior.

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 ('List the people in the signed-in owner's company') plus scope (joined members and pending invitations). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations like add_member, remove_member, and resend_invite.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition: 'Company owners only' as a prerequisite, and 'Omit company to list every company you own' as the default behavior. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for a different view, so it falls short of a 5.

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