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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description nonetheless adds return-shape context and explains the blocked_at field semantics (null = open access), which is behavioral meaning not present in annotations. It does repeat "только читает" redundantly, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the return contents before the routing list, and every clause is functional. The long enumeration of seven siblings is dense but earns its place given how many member-management siblings exist; only minor trimming (the redundant "только читает") is possible.

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 completely — members, roles, invitation state, folders, last activity, and blocked_at. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% — limit, offset, status enum, and workspace_id are all fully documented in the schema. The description adds no pagination or status-filtering syntax beyond what the schema already provides, 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 a specific verb and resource plus the exact return payload: members, roles, invitation acceptance, accessible folders, and last activity. It is unmistakably distinct from every write-oriented sibling (invite_workspace_member, set_workspace_member_role, etc.), which are named by role.

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 names the when-to-use case ("когда надо понять, кто работает в аккаунте и почему у коллеги нет доступа") and routes every adjacent operation to its sibling — invite, role, folders, API access, remove, resend, block/unblock. An agent can pick this tool vs. the seven member-management siblings without opening a schema.

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