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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the returned id is a membership id, not a user id, and is intended for subsequent mutation calls. This helps prevent misuse of the output.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides essential downstream context about the id semantics. Every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description covers the return content (members, role, caption) and the key behavioral nuance about membership ids. It could mention pagination behavior, but the schema already defines page and page_size defaults and limits.

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%, so the schema already documents team_id, page, and page_size. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, which fits the baseline of 3.

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 clearly specifies the operation: listing a team's current members, including role and caption. It is a specific verb+resource statement that is distinct from sibling tools like team_open_roles or team_roles, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 provides useful downstream guidance by telling the agent to use the returned row id with team_assign_role or team_remove_member. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like company_roster or team_matchmaking_teams, leaving the selection context mostly implied.

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