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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure, and it is unusually detailed: it explains the untrustedText flag, warns that member-written text is data rather than instructions (relevant for prompt injection), and discloses credential persistence and header-precedence behavior. This goes well beyond a minimal description.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and each sentence adds a distinct piece of context: output scope, untrusted text semantics, auth configuration, credential privacy. It is dense but not bloated; the only minor issue is that the auth guidance is repeated verbatim in the schema.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential output categories, untrustedText semantics, and auth mechanics needed to call the tool. It does not specify exact response field names or error/unauthorized behavior, but it provides enough for correct invocation in a configured MCP client.

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% and the pass parameter's schema description already contains the same sensitive-fallback, header-precedence, and transcript-persistence text. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage 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 opens with 'Your own membership, pass expiry and remaining daily quota,' which identifies the resource and scope: the authenticated caller's own account data. This is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'member' or 'status', though it never names an alternative explicitly and lacks a verb like 'retrieve'.

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 the tool is for the authenticated caller ('Your own'), and it gives concrete invocation guidance about preferring Authorization headers and omitting the pass argument. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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