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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: 'newest membership first' and the fact that it lists only assignable members, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or request_id semantics, but the read-only context lowers the burden.

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 sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint is appended clearly. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately terse for a list endpoint.

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 description covers purpose, ordering, and a usage workflow, but it does not explain how to use the pagination/limit parameters or what `starting_after` expects. Since the tool has no output schema and a very lean parameter set, the description should at least mention that `limit` and `starting_after` control paging. Without that, an agent may not correctly invoke pagination, making this only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain `limit`, `starting_after`, or `request_id`. While 'newest membership first' implies ordering for cursor pagination, it does not state what values `starting_after` accepts (e.g., member ID) or what `request_id` is for. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning and leaves the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 organization members who can be assigned as interviewers'. It clarifies the return scope ('organization members', 'assignable as interviewers') and ordering ('newest membership first'), and the usage note ('Use this to pick a usr_ public display id before assigning an interviewer') distinguishes it from related list tools like yardstick_interview_sessions_interviewers_list. No ambiguity about what is listed.

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?

Gives a clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to pick a usr_ public display id before assigning an interviewer.' This is an explicit workflow trigger. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance; the differentiation from sibling tools like interview_sessions_interviewers_list is left implicit via the name and description.

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