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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden — and it delivers the two most decision-relevant traits: 'Read-only' (safe, non-mutating) and 'free' (no credit cost). It does not describe the shape of each member record returned, which is the remaining gap for a listing tool.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the ordering is right: what it lists, then the cross-tool workflow reason, then the read-only/cost caveat.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, safety profile, cost, and workflow placement — everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the return-field detail is left implicit.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description adds useful scope context anyway (members eligible to own leads).

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) and resource (workspace members), and narrows scope with 'who can own a CRM lead' — a meaningful qualifier that distinguishes it from other list_* tools like list_agents or crm_list_workspace_agents.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use before `reassign_crm_lead` to get valid owner ids.' This names the dependent sibling tool and the condition that selects it, so the agent knows not just when to use it but why.

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