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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail — that only ACTIVE members are returned — which an agent could not infer from annotations or schema. It does not clarify ordering, whether deactivated members are ever included, or stability of the list across calls.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The scope and returned fields are front-loaded before the actionable consumption guidance, which is the right ordering for a lookup tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not narrate return values, and the role enum plus member_id linkage is enough for correct invocation. Minor residual gap: no statement of whether bots or deactivated users are excluded by 'active', which affects how an agent interprets a missing id.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The field/role detail it provides concerns output rather than input, which is harmless but not additive to parameter semantics.

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 identifies the resource and scope precisely — 'Active org team members' — and enumerates the returned fields (member_id, name, role) with the role enum inline. It is unambiguous what the tool yields, though it omits an explicit verb like 'list' and relies on the name/title for that framing.

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?

The second sentence gives concrete downstream usage: feed member_id into assign_conversation or responsible_member_id on tasks. That tells an agent exactly why and when to call this tool. It does not state exclusions, but no sibling tool offers an overlapping team-member listing, so there is little ambiguity to resolve.

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