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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotation: the return payload fields and, more importantly, the key-scope-dependent visibility rule, which tells the agent a department key may legitimately return a subset of members rather than an error.

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 dense sentences with the returned fields front-loaded and the visibility caveat immediately after; the trailing endpoint reference is mildly extraneous but useful for a developer-facing API tool. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields. For a single-parameter read tool with clean annotations, nothing critical is missing, though error behavior (e.g. non-existent or out-of-scope id) is left unstated.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents id as a positive integer team member id. The description adds no format, range, or lookup-hint information beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the exact resource (one team member of the account) and enumerates what is returned — name, e-mail, permissions per department — plus the underlying endpoint GET /v1/team_members/{id}. No sibling in the list retrieves team members, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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 description explains that visible members depend on the key type (account-wide key sees all, department key only its own department), which is useful scoping context, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus another or any preconditions/exclusions. Usage is only implied by the retrieval verb.

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