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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the returned fields, distinguishes resolved display titles from FK IDs, and warns that AI-agent identities may appear and should be excluded in people-focused answers.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then adds only useful filtering, return-field, and identity-exclusion details. Each sentence contributes to correct selection or interpretation.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and has rich annotations. The description supplies the remaining important context: field meanings, display-title guidance, and the AI-identity caveat. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 50%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented limit parameter. It does say results are limited by `limit` and that `nameStartsWith` filters by name prefix, but it does not add details such as the default or maximum limit; the schema handles those.

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 org members.' It also clarifies optional filtering and the returned member fields, so an agent can immediately understand the tool's role. No sibling tool appears to duplicate this member-listing purpose.

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 gives clear usage context: list org members, optionally filter by name prefix, and exclude AI-agent identities when answering questions about people. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, but the intended use case is clear.

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