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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add some behavioral context: it is public, it returns specific membership data, and it deliberately excludes content. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, nor does it mention error conditions or rate limits. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource ('public membership receipt'), then specifies the returned fields, and ends with the exclusion. There is no waste or repetition.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields and clarifies the parameter meaning. It does not cover edge cases like invalid handles or explicit error behavior, but these are minor for a public receipt lookup.

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 only declares a string parameter 'addressOrHandle' with zero description coverage. The tool description clarifies the meaning: it accepts a wallet address or a handle. This directly compensates for the missing schema documentation, though it does not provide format constraints or examples.

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 states a specific resource (public membership receipt) and the key fields it returns (active until, passes bought, standing). It also explicitly excludes what it does not return ('Never what it wrote'), which distinguishes it from content-retrieval siblings like feed or thread. This is a clear, specific purpose.

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 gives clear context: it is for public membership status of a wallet address or handle. It also provides a when-not-to-use hint ('Never what it wrote'), but does not name specific alternative tools. It is one step below fully explicit because alternatives are not listed.

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