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

Annotations declare read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: no paging, exact return fields (members, count, seatCap, seatsUsed), and auth/error conditions. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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, each earning its place: the first defines scope and fields, the second explains return structure and paging, the third covers errors and ownership. No redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema or parameters, the description fully specifies the return shape, field semantics, paging behavior, and error conditions. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has no parametersage, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline 4 is appropriate because parameter semantics are trivially covered.

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 identifies the tool as listing project members, including the owner, with specific fields. This distinguishes it from sibling member-related tools like invite_member, remove_member, and set_member_role.

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?

It explicitly states 'Owner only' and specifies error conditions for non-owners or missing config scope, providing clear when-not guidance. It doesn't name an alternative tool, but no sibling provides the same roster-listing functionality.

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