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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: a fixed page size of 20, the exact per-item fields, exclusion of pending invitations, and the pagination termination signal. It stops short of stating result ordering or any permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then paging, then item shape, then scope exclusion and the loop terminator. Every sentence carries information, though "20 per page" partially duplicates the limit parameter's documented default of 20.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes item fields briefly without bloat. Scope, paging, and the pending-invitation exclusion are all covered, leaving only minor gaps such as result ordering or stable-pagination guarantees.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by tying the response's next_cursor to the cursor parameter and naming the termination condition (null on last page), and by reinforcing the 20-per-page default alongside the limit maximum of 100, which helps an agent write a correct pagination loop.

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?

"List the people on the account" gives a specific verb (list) and resource (account members) with explicit scope. No sibling tool in the catalog covers member listing, and the definition makes it unmistakable that this enumerates humans on the account rather than checks, dashboards, or notifications.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating account members. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, though the exclusion note ("pending invitations don't") does clarify a scope boundary an agent might otherwise assume wrong.

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