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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, but the description adds real behavioral context: `company_user` is included by default, specific fields are returned, and an unknown `include` value causes Aryeo to reply with the allowed list — useful failure-mode disclosure. No pagination/return-shape detail, keeping it below 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the two-ID caveat, which is the highest-value information for an agent. Dense but not padded; the only mild cost is that the ID discussion is packed into one long sentence.

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 does so by naming the fields and the default-expanded relation, plus the endpoint. Pagination behavior is left to the schema's next_page note, so it is nearly but not fully self-contained.

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 reinforces the `company_user` default and the ID semantics used by other tools, but adds no syntax or format detail for `search`, `page`, `per_page`, or `include` beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('List your company's team members (photographers and staff)') and enumerates the fields returned (role, status, service-provider flag, permissions). The distinction from aryeo_list_team_member_events is drawn explicitly via the two-id explanation, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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 routes the agent: member `id` for aryeo_list_team_member_events and as task assignee company_team_member_id, while `company_user.id` is the USER id for the user_ids filters of orders, appointments, timeslots and dates. That is strong downstream guidance, though it doesn't state when to prefer this listing over other company-level listings.

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