or_org_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key prerequisite (Management key for org account) and implies a read-only operation via 'List.' However, it does not describe error behavior for non-management keys, rate limits, or pagination details beyond the schema, leaving some behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds value. It states what the tool does, the operational condition, and a practical use case without redundant information.

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 simple list tool with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, prerequisite, and use case. It does not detail the return format, but the operation itself implies a list of members, and the schema handles pagination. The description is nearly complete for its complexity.

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%, with both 'limit' and 'offset' having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents the parameters well. Thus, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List members of the OpenRouter organization' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by adding the contextual condition 'when running under a Management key for an org account' and notes its relevance to guardrail member-assignments, which aligns with sibling tools like or_guardrails_assignments.

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 provides clear usage context: it only applies when running under a Management key for an org account, and it is 'useful as input for guardrail member-assignments.' This implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions. The sibling list shows related guardrail tools, and the mention of guardrail member-assignments helps differentiate and guide selection.

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