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

Annotations only cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive); the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that SCIM-deactivated members are excluded, that OWNER/ADMIN callers get extra email and 2FA-enabled fields while other roles do not, and that isAgentPersona=true marks service accounts excluded from 2FA posture and billable seats elsewhere.

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?

Front-loads what it returns, then conditions (agent vs person, role-gated fields, exclusions), then the filter. Dense but each sentence carries information; the isAgentPersona rationale sentence is the longest and slightly over-explains for a list tool.

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, the description still conveys the essential return shape (name, role, conditional email/2FA status) and the exclusion rule for deactivated members, which is what an agent needs to interpret results 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 50%: `limit` is documented in the schema, and `role` is enumerated there. The description repeats the role enum values but adds no semantics beyond them and never addresses the limit/pagination parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (List) and resource (active members of the caller's organization) plus the returned fields (name + role). Scope terms like 'active' and 'caller's organization' distinguish it from siblings such as list_team_members, list_ccb_members, and get_team without opening their schemas.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to filter on isAgentPersona 'before reporting headcount or reviewing who holds access', which is real when-to-use guidance tied to downstream workflows. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., list_team_members) for narrower member queries, so routing between siblings is left implicit.

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