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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's main addition is the reference-data framing and the endpoint. It does not disclose result ordering, whether team membership includes inactive users, or any auth/rate-limit behavior, leaving the behavioral picture thin beyond the annotation.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the resource definition comes first, then the practical usage note, then the API reference. Three short statements with no filler, though the parenthetical field list and em-dash clause make it slightly dense.

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 burden of describing return values and does so by naming the returned fields; pagination is handled by the schema's limit/offset. What remains unstated is pagination metadata (e.g. next_item, totals) mentioned in the offset description, which would round out the picture.

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% — both limit (1-100, default 25) and offset (0-based, default 0) are fully documented in the schema, including the default values. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, 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?

Identifies the exact resource (LGL user accounts on the team) and enumerates the fields returned (name, email, admin flag), plus the underlying endpoint GET /api/v1/team_members. It also positions the tool relative to siblings by explaining these are the values a gift's or contact report's team_member field refers to, which no other sibling tool does.

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 what to do with the results: "Use the ids and names when recording gifts or filtering searches." That is actionable usage guidance tied to sibling operations (create_gift, search_constituents), though it stops short of stating when not to call it or naming a competing alternative.

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