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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: that this is read-only and that all mutation flows live in the Ficiel UI, plus the semantic rule 'Un Admin a toutes les permissions', which explains how to interpret the permission fields. It does not discuss ordering, volume or result limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by the field inventory and then the read-only caveat. The long parenthetical permission list is dense but earns its place since there is no output schema to carry that information. No filler sentences.

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 and zero parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so field by field, including the non-obvious rule about Admin permissions. It also closes the loop on mutation by pointing to Ficiel. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The field enumeration describes output rather than inputs, which is appropriate here.

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 the resource unambiguously ('Les membres de votre organisation') and enumerates the exact fields returned (email, Admin/Agent, owner status, login state, invitation status, permissions, hidden tags, visible channels). It is immediately distinguishable from every sibling, all of which operate on leads, conversations, tags or automations rather than team members. It lacks an explicit verb, but the purpose is not in doubt.

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 an explicit when-not boundary: 'Lecture seule : inviter, modifier ou retirer un membre se fait dans Ficiel', telling the agent not to attempt mutations through this tool. There is no sibling alternative to route to for listing members, so no alternative needs naming. It stops short of stating a positive trigger condition (e.g. when to consult the team list), which keeps it from a 5.

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