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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns membership, pass expiry, and quota, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authorization requirements beyond the pass parameter, or limitations. For a simple query tool this is adequate, but it lacks depth.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information: what the tool returns and for whom. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool and contains no filler. Could be slightly more explicit by adding a verb, but it is already clear.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it tells the agent what data will be returned and that it relates to the caller's own account. Given the simplicity, nothing critical is missing, though it could mention that authentication is implied via the pass parameter.

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 schema already covers the single optional 'pass' parameter with 100% coverage, describing it as the bearer pass. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving the caller's own membership, pass expiry, and remaining daily quota. It distinguishes from sibling 'member' by specifying 'Your own', and from 'status' by listing the specific data points. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', so it reads more as a noun phrase than an action statement.

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 this is the tool to check one's own membership and quota, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or context about when not to use it. There is no mention of alternative tools like 'member' or 'status' that might serve related purposes.

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