beel_list_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: it declares the entire list is returned and not paginated, and specifies the content (roles and granted companies). It also states the endpoint, reinforcing the operation's nature. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences plus an endpoint line, with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information: content returned, non-pagination behavior, and the HTTP endpoint. Efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with one fully described parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what is listed, the lack of pagination, and the endpoint. The parameter description already handles error conditions (403). It does not describe the exact response structure, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity and existing schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100% and the account_id description is already rich, explaining ownership, credential behavior, and 403 responses. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it only restates the endpoint. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 action ('Lists the people with access to the account') and details the exact content ('account_role', companies/NIFs for MEMBERs). It also notes the endpoint and non-pagination, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from a single-member fetch or grants-only tools by describing the full member list with role and grant information.

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 useful context ('The whole list is returned; it is not paginated') that informs when to use it (when you need all members at once). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for a single member use beel_get_member' or 'for grants only use beel_list_member_grants'. Usage guidance is implied but not made explicit.

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