List Organization Memberships

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of genuinely useful context beyond that: the required OAuth scope and the bounded/opaque nature of page_token retrieval. It does not describe pagination limits or return shape beyond the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource. Docked one point because 'Reads Calendly data.' conveys no information and could be dropped without loss.

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 9-parameter list tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description is thin: it never says what a membership record contains or that results are paginated by default. The scope note and annotations fill part of the gap, but an agent still lacks return-shape context.

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 100% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already documents each filter, count bounds, page_token, and all_pages/max_items semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., interaction between all_pages and count is undocumented), so the baseline 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 first sentence restates the title verbatim, and the second ('Reads Calendly data.') is generic filler. The verb+resource (list organization memberships) is nonetheless identifiable, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_organization_membership, list_organization_invitations, or list_teams.

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 when-to-use guidance and no disambiguation from the many sibling list/get tools. The only usage-relevant content is the 'Required scopes: organizations:read' prerequisite, which is a partial but real hint; otherwise the agent must infer everything.

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