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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds that it returns id, name, and email, lists up to 100 members by default, and filters by name/email. The extra note that sharing does not require sharing a team is useful behavioral context 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?

Four focused sentences cover purpose, return fields, query behavior, and the downstream use of the returned id. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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, read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains results, filtering, limits, and how to use the output, so an agent has enough to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the first-name/last-name/email detail and reinforces the omit-query behavior, but does not materially expand on the slug parameter 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 the specific verb 'List' and resource 'organization members', plus the purpose of sharing dashboards/reports/budgets/alerts. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_teams and list_alerts by focusing on people rather than resources.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: when you need a person's id to share something with them or to set object permissions. It explains the optional query behavior and the no-team-sharing prerequisite, though it does not explicitly name an alternative like list_teams for team-related queries.

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