Участники дела

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the members.view permission requirement, a behavioral/access constraint not present in annotations. No other behavioral traits such as response shape or error handling are disclosed, so 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded phrase stating the core purpose, followed by a one-clause permission note. Every word adds information and there is no redundancy.

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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter, the description and schema together cover the essential information: what is returned (members and roles), the required permission, and parameter semantics. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the description's clear indication of the returned content, though a more explicit mention of the response structure could push it to 5.

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 only parameter, business, is 100% documented in the input schema, including default-resolution behavior. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 identifies the resource (case members) and the attribute (role), which is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings such as businesses_list or accounts_list. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'returns', relying on the tool name to convey the operation.

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 case participants and their roles, and states a prerequisite permission (members.view). However, it does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, leaving the selection guidance mostly to inference.

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