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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that pending invitations are included in the result, not just active members — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or permission requirements for viewing members.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and the exact contents of the response are stated before anything else.

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?

With an output schema present to describe return fields, rich annotations covering the safety profile, and no input parameters to document, the description only needs to convey scope — which it does, including the non-obvious inclusion of pending invitations.

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 schema imposes nothing the description must compensate for; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, and none is needed.

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 (List), the resource (members of the connected account), and the scope detail (account roles plus pending invitations). The 'connected account' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling list_project_members, so an agent can pick the right tool 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?

The description says what is returned but never states when to use this tool versus list_project_members for project-scoped members or invite_account_member / remove_account_member for mutations of the same resource. No prerequisites, no exclusions, so usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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