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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the "can edit" audience restriction; it says nothing about whether the list is paginated, whether it includes pending invitations, or what identity fields (name, email, role) come back.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero redundant or filler wording. Nothing could be removed without losing scope 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the definition is serviceable, but it omits the return shape (does it list names, emails, roles?) and whether results are truncated or paginated. Those are the only facts an agent would still need before calling it confidently.

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% – the single `site` parameter is documented with both slug and id forms plus an example – so the schema already does the work. The description adds no further meaning about slug/id resolution or behavior on an unknown site, matching the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 ("List the people") and scopes it to a single site with an editor qualifier ("who can edit"). That qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from list_visitors and list_agent_access, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 use case is implied by "who can edit this site" – fetch the editing roster for a given site – but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of alternatives such as list_visitors or list_agent_access for other audiences, and no statement of prerequisites or required permissions.

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