list_organization_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: a plain member sees only their own entry because other members' emails/names/roles are admin/owner-only. It omits other behavior such as pagination, ordering, or error conditions when the caller is not in an organization.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the permission caveat. No filler, no redundancy, nothing that fails to earn 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the main gotcha (permission-scoped visibility). Given a zero-parameter, no-annotation read tool, this is nearly sufficient; only edge-case behavior (no org membership, empty result) is left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. No parameter meaning is lost or misstated.

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 and resource ('List the caller's organization's members'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling get_organization. However, it never names or contrasts with any sibling tool, so the differentiation is only implicit through the resource noun.

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 by the name and the scoping sentence, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of get_organization as the alternative for org-level details, and no stated preconditions (e.g., what happens if the caller has no organization).

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