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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, yet the description still adds real value beyond them: an authorization requirement and a prompt-injection safety rule for untrusted text. It also explains the non-obvious semantics of the viaAssistant flag, which no annotation conveys.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core scope and returned fields front-loaded before the security caveat. Every clause carries information the agent could not obtain from structured fields.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, returned fields, caller authorization, a field's special semantics, and untrusted-content handling. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret this tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100% and the single workspaceId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its optionality when the caller belongs to one workspace. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 workspace's active members and pending invitations' — and even enumerates the returned fields (email, role, last seen). This is clearly distinguishable from the write-side sibling invite_member and from get_workspace_info, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 an explicit access gate ('Admins and owners only'), which tells the agent who may call it and implicitly when it is appropriate. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not routing of a 5.

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