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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one real addition is the mutual-exclusivity constraint ("Pass one of"), which is not enforced by the schema since both properties are optional and nullable; it says nothing about not-found behavior or what happens if both are supplied.

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, front-loaded with the resource and then the calling rule. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter read with a full-coverage schema, rich annotations and an output schema (so return shape need not be described), the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is unstated not-found/error behavior, which is minor for a getter.

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% and each property already explains its provenance (list_team_members -> id / user.email), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds marginal value by signalling that the two parameters are alternatives rather than cumulative, which the schema's anyOf/nullable shape does not make obvious.

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 ("Get one team member") plus the two lookup keys, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_team_members. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling as the alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The sentence "Pass one of member_id or email" gives call-time guidance but not when-to-use context: no guidance on how to obtain an id (list_team_members is only referenced inside the schema), and no statement about what to do if the member is not found or if neither identifier is available.

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