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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the required TEAMS_READ permission, which helps agents anticipate authorization failures. It also discloses the exact response shape. It does not discuss pagination or sort behavior, but for a read-only list tool the added context is sufficient.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, output fields, underlying query, and required permission in two sentences. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly lists the returned fields (role flags, preferredName, email) and the required authorization. It is complete for a simple read-only list operation, though it omits details like default sort order or error handling, which are minor given the schema coverage.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'teamId' and 'sortBy'. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond restating that the teamId is used and that members are sorted by the optional field, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('the members of a team'), and the exact data shape returned (role flags, underlying user fields). It also provides the underlying GraphQL query, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_teams' or 'list_organization_users' by making the resource scope unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool—when you need team membership with role and user details. It provides contextual clues like the required permission and GraphQL query, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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