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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are a *sample*, not an exhaustive list, and must be paginated. It stops short of explaining what kind of sample (random vs. first-N) or whether pagination is stable across pages, which materially affects how an agent interprets results.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the pagination constraint immediately after. Every sentence 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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential shape of the return value (player ids) and the pagination model, which is what an agent most needs. The only real gap is the undefined nature of the sample and any cap on pages, a minor omission given the fully documented schema and annotations.

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%, with cohortId, projectId, environment, pageSize (default 25, max 100) and pageNumber all documented inline, including pointers to list_projects. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the 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 names a specific verb and resource: returning a paginated sample of player ids within a cohort. That is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_cohort_member_count or list_cohorts, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_cohort_membership, which an agent might confuse it with.

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 gives one concrete operational instruction — page through results rather than dumping all members in one call — which is real when-to-use guidance. However, it offers no routing guidance versus siblings (get_cohort_membership, get_cohort_member_count, run_cohort_definition), leaving the agent to infer which cohort tool to pick.

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