list_endpoint_group_members

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses the paginated return envelope {total, offset, has_more, items}, the default and maximum page size (20/200), and that `contains` filtering happens server-side on the items' own fields. It could still note ordering or what happens at the end of paging (has_more semantics are implied, not explained).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with scope, then pagination facts, then the filter caveat; nothing is padded. Slightly dense in the last sentence, but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description supplies the response shape, paging limits, and filter semantics the agent needs. It is close to complete, missing only ordering/paging-termination details and any mention of cross-tool selection.

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, and it does for the two non-obvious parameters: `contains` is defined as a server-side text filter over items' own fields with an example, and `limit` is given its default (20) and cap (200). The required org_id and group_id are left to their names, which is reasonable but leaves them unverified.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('List endpoints in an endpoint group') that resolves the ambiguity of 'members' in the tool name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like list_endpoints or list_endpoint_groups by stating when its scoped view is the right one.

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 offers practical usage advice ('check `total` before paging through everything') and explains what `contains` is for, but never states when to pick this tool over list_endpoints / list_endpoint_groups or what conditions make a group-scoped listing necessary.

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