beel_list_member_grants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's job is reduced. It adds beyond that by explaining the empty result for OWNER/ADMIN and the endpoint format, giving context about the operation's behavior that annotations do not cover.

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 economical sentences plus the endpoint line. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the OWNER/ADMIN exception is concisely stated without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only list operation with well-documented schema and annotations, the description conveys the essential purpose, the special case for OWNER/ADMIN, and the endpoint. It does not mention pagination or response format details, but for this simple list tool, those are minor omissions.

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?

The input schema fully covers both parameters (account_id and member_id) with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but it does hint at the output structure (companies and access levels), which is not directly about parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists), a clear resource (companies/NIFs granted to a member), and the returned attribute (access_level). The description also distinguishes this read operation from mutation siblings like beel_put_member_grant and beel_delete_member_grant by its read-only nature.

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?

Provides a valuable usage hint: for OWNER and ADMIN it returns empty because they implicitly reach all companies, so an agent knows when this tool adds value and when it will return nothing. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the special-case note guides effective use.

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