List my teammates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers non-obvious behavior: the caller is excluded from results, and 'my team' is resolved from a deployment setting (team.orgOids / team.orgNames) rather than all orgs. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering, and the closing sentence about OIDs vs display names is guidance aimed at write tools rather than disclosure about this one.

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 scoping statement is correctly front-loaded, but the middle clause about users in several orgs is a convoluted parenthetical, and the final sentence about naming people/roles by display name is off-topic for a read-only list tool and cannot be acted on here.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The genuine gap is sibling disambiguation against `list_my_team`, which shares almost the same name and is not mentioned anywhere in the description.

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?

Only one optional parameter (`limit`) exists and schema coverage is 100%, with default and maximum already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the limit or result ordering, so the baseline of 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 first clause gives a specific verb and resource and defines scope precisely: peers, i.e. other members of the caller's orgs, with the caller excluded. What's missing is any differentiation from the sibling tool `list_my_team`, whose name is nearly identical — an agent cannot tell the two apart from this text alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description explains the deployment-level org scoping caveat but never says when to prefer this over `list_my_team` or `search_users`. The config-file reference is a caveat about result scope, not a when-to-use rule.

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