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 one piece of behavioral information — that signature values are present on each row — but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema covers.

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, both earning their place: the first establishes what is returned, the second establishes the use case. Front-loaded with the resource and no 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 simple, read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of an output schema combined with only a partial account of what each row contains.

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% (page and per_page are fully documented with defaults and bounds), so the description is not required to compensate. It adds no further parameter meaning, which is the correct baseline for a 2-param fully-documented schema.

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 workspace teammates') and adds scope that matters: signature values are returned with each teammate. That differentiates it from get_teammate (single record) in substance, though the sibling is never named.

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 one concrete usage scenario (coverage questions like 'who is missing a job title?'), which is genuinely useful context. However it never states when to prefer get_teammate or get_teammate_signature instead, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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