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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond it: the exact API endpoint, the teamMembers field selection, and the returned block's composition (id, name, email, description, pic, calendarId). It does not contradict the read-only 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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the action is front-loaded, the API mapping is one line, and the return shape is one line. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it does, how it calls the API, and what it returns. The only gaps are minor: no behavior for missing/invalid profileId and no clarification of the relationship to the get_profile sibling.

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% — profileId is already documented as 'The profile (booking page) id.' The description only restates profileId in the endpoint URL and adds no new format, constraints, or usage 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the team members configured on a profile (booking page).' This differentiates from create_team_member/update_team_member and list_profiles implicitly, though it never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the contrast rather than being told.

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?

Usage context is implied: when you have a profileId and need its team members, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions, and since the underlying call is GET /v1/profiles/{profileId} — the same endpoint a get_profile sibling would use — the description does not clarify when to choose this tool over get_profile.

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