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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior: the 200-item ceiling, nextCursor pagination, and the privacy rule that phone numbers are never returned even masked. It does not describe the shape of each member record, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

A single dense sentence with the permission prerequisite front-loaded, followed by operational constraints and id-routing. Efficient, though the semicolon-chained id guidance is slightly cramped.

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 carries the return-value burden and covers the key fields (user.id, membershipId, masked phone) and pagination contract. It still omits the overall member object shape (roles, join time, etc.), leaving a modest gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so q/limit/cursor/organizationId are already documented in the schema; the description's 'max 200, nextCursor' largely restates the limit/cursor parameters. It adds the semantic warning not to conflate membershipId with userId, but that concerns returned fields rather than the four input parameters.

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+resource (list organization members) plus scope (max 200, cursor pagination) and the permission gate (OWNER/ADMIN). The membershipId vs userId note implicitly separates it from list_my_organization_memberships and the member-mutation siblings.

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?

Clearly states login and OWNER/ADMIN are required, and gives actionable downstream routing: user.id → get_creator/start_conversation, membershipId for member operations. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool for adjacent listing tasks, so no 'when-not-to-use' clause.

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