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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses what the response contains (people and their roles, with user_id as the key for downstream mutations), which is genuinely useful chaining context for a tool with no output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by sibling routing. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 listing with safety annotations fully covered and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, return content and navigation to the correct siblings. Only an explicit statement of ordering/pagination behavior 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% and the single project_id parameter is documented there as coming from dosai_list_projects. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, 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 names the resource precisely ('people with access to the project and their roles'), which unambiguously identifies this as a team/member listing for a project. It is not phrased with an explicit verb, but the noun phrasing plus the name dosai_list_team leaves no real ambiguity for an agent.

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?

It routes the agent explicitly to the member-management siblings: invite via dosai_invite_member, pending invitations via dosai_list_invites, and it flags that the returned user_id feeds dosai_change_member_role and dosai_remove_member. That is concrete alternative-selection guidance, though there is no explicit statement of when not to call it.

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