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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes safety, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the exact fields returned (name, email, admin flag) and the upstream API path. With no output schema, disclosing the returned field set is genuinely useful; it only lacks notes on ordering or default result size (though the schema covers limit/offset).

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler, front-loading what the tool returns and following with usage and the API path. The opening is a noun fragment rather than a full clause, a minor stylistic wart, but nothing is wasted.

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, annotation-covered list endpoint with two fully documented optional params, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what the resource is, what fields come back, and how the ids are consumed downstream. No output schema is required given the field enumeration.

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 both limit and offset are fully documented there, including defaults and the next_item pagination hint. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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?

States the resource precisely (LGL user accounts on the team) and enumerates the returned fields (name, email, admin flag), so an agent knows exactly what this list tool yields. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the resource is the referent of a gift's or contact report's team_member, and cites the underlying endpoint.

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 tells the agent when to reach for it: to obtain the ids and names needed when recording gifts or filtering searches, which routes usage toward lgl_create_gift and the search tools. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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