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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add what they cannot. It does that by declaring the return shape ('name, email, and role') and flagging that search and pagination are optional. It omits default page size, cursor semantics, and empty-result behavior, which are left to the schema.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the return value, then the use case. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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?

All parameters are optional and fully described in the schema, and with no output schema the description usefully names the returned fields. The main remaining gap is the absence of pagination traversal behavior, but for a simple read-only list that is minor.

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%, with each of the five parameters documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'optional search and pagination' adds a small framing hint but no format or constraint details beyond what the schema already says.

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 team members') plus the modifiers (optional search and pagination), and adds the returned fields. No sibling tool lists members, and the 'team members' phrasing is unambiguous against search/searchJams.

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 concrete use case ('find users for filtering Jams by author'), which tells the agent when this call is warranted. It stops short of naming an alternative or an exclusion ('use X instead when...'), so it is clear context without routing rules.

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