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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description needs to add behavioral context and does not: it never mentions pagination behavior, cursor semantics, ordering, or result-set size limits. The only addition is the underlying 'GET /members' endpoint, which is of marginal value to an agent.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler; the core purpose and the filter dimensions are front-loaded before the trailing endpoint reference.

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 13-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the response shape and pagination workflow (it never signals that results are paged via cursor_next/cursor_prev). The schema covers inputs well, but the description does not close the remaining behavioral gap.

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%, with every one of the 13 parameters documented including formats (ISO 8601, cursor fields, the <field>:asc|desc sort pattern). The description's filter list simply restates a subset of that schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List members (people) of the workspace') and enumerates the filterable dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_member (single-record fetch) or explain the list-vs-get boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer officernd_list_members over officernd_get_member when an email is known, nor when to fall back to officernd_list_companies. The filter enumeration implies bulk/search usage but no alternative or exclusion is named.

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