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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints: it explains the inviteUrl is safe to share, that the row 'id' is what set_role and remove consume, and what 'membership' means (internal sees everything, external sees shared items only). The authorization rule is also disclosed.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what gets listed, followed by row shape and access rule. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still supplies the interpretive keys an agent needs (id usage, membership meaning, inviteUrl safety, exclusions, permission gate). Nothing required to call this 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 coverage is 100% and the single workspaceId parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description's rich detail is about output row fields rather than the input parameter, so it adds little to what the schema already says about workspaceId.

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 added to this workspace') and immediately enumerates the two row kinds: members by account and pending invites by email. It also names what it does not return ('Ownership and team access are not listed'), which separates it from workspace_list, team_list and workspace_show.

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 prerequisite ('Internal admins and editors may list') and a negative scope ('Ownership and team access are not listed') that routes the agent elsewhere for those. It never explicitly names the sibling tool to use for ownership/team data, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternative map.

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