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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the auth requirement ('Requires the user's Oids api_key') and discloses that member counts are returned, which is modest but real added context; it says nothing about pagination or result ordering.

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, scope first and the auth condition second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 list with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers scope, return shape (member counts), and auth. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination or empty-result behavior.

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 api_key parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the header alternative. The description's restatement of the api_key requirement adds nothing beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List the team rooms the user's agent belongs to') plus the return payload detail (member counts). It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like oids_create_room or oids_room_add_member, though it never names a sibling or an alternative listing tool to contrast against.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the auth note, and no mention of alternatives such as oids_view_profile or oids_leaderboard for related data. The agent must infer that this is the room-enumeration entry point 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.