查询共享账号成员

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the result contains (three permission levels plus approval status), which goes beyond the annotations. It still omits pagination behavior, whether the caller needs admin rights, and how results are ordered, so it adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 a single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned permission types in a compact parenthetical; there is no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though that same brevity is what leaves usage and paging behavior unaddressed.

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 3-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the conceptual return set, which is helpful. It is still incomplete: it does not explain the paging parameters, whose schema descriptions are absent, nor any access prerequisites. This is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 description coverage is only 33%: 'user' is documented, while 'limit' and 'offset' have no descriptions, but the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not explain that 'user' identifies the shared/delegated account being inspected, nor that results are paged with a maximum of 100 per call. With low coverage, the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 names a specific verb+resource (查询共享账号/委托账号的成员) and enumerates the returned data (LOGIN / SEND_AS / SEND_ON_BEHALF permission types plus approval status). This clearly distinguishes it from list_users and list_department_users, which access different resources. However, it never names those sibling tools explicitly, so the distinction is inferential rather than stated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it contains no if/then conditions, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. Because it is a read-only member query, an agent would have to infer that it applies to shared/delegated mailboxes rather than departments or plain users.

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