list_org_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait beyond the schema: reads are gated on the organisation owner's Business plan, not the caller's own plan. Beyond that it says nothing about ordering, pagination, empty results, or whether non-members are hidden.

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 single functional sentence is correctly front-loaded, but three of the four sentences are pricing-page marketing copy and an upgrade URL that do nothing for tool invocation and actively compete for attention.

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?

No output schema and no annotations for a tool whose whole value is the returned member/role list. The description never states the response shape or whether it is paginated, while spending its remaining budget on upsell text.

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 0% and the single required parameter org_id is undocumented in both places. The description confirms org_id is the scope of the listing but gives no format, source (e.g. from list_my_orgs), or validation behaviour.

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 sentence gives a specific verb and resource plus a stated return element ("with their role"): 'List every member of *org_id* with their role.' It does not distinguish the tool from near siblings such as list_team_members, list_my_orgs or list_my_teams, so an agent must infer the scope difference itself.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_team_members (team-scoped) or list_my_orgs (which org to pass). The only conditional content is a plan-eligibility note about Kiln Business, which addresses access rather than tool selection.

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