get_all_company_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behavioral traits: no pagination and potential slowness for large companies. This goes beyond what the name alone would imply and helps the agent anticipate performance risks. However, it does not mention permissions or error behavior, which would make it even more transparent.

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 one sentence long, front-loads the core purpose, and uses the parenthetical for caveats. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and a notable caveat. However, it omits mention of the closely related sibling list_company_members, which could be critical for an agent to choose the correct tool. The absence of return-value details is acceptable since there is no output schema, but the lack of alternative guidance is a gap.

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 for company_id is 100% (description: 'Company ID'), and the description adds no additional parameter-level detail. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not compensate with extra context, so this score is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gets') and clearly identifies the resource ('all members of a company'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_company_members by adding the parenthetical 'no pagination', which indicates a unique scope and behavior.

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 implies usage when you need all members at once without pagination, and warns about slow performance for large companies. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., list_company_members for paginated retrieval) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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