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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that — nothing about whether the full list is returned, ordering, pagination, or how includeStats changes the payload — so it does not meet the bar of adding context beyond annotations.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though as a fragment it omits the operation verb rather than being maximally front-loaded for an action tool.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the definition of what a status card is (tiers with pricing and linked benefits) is sufficient to call the tool correctly. Missing listing/pagination behavior is the only real gap.

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%, so both parameters (orgId with its list_orgs reference and single-org omission rule, and includeStats) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description mentions no parameters, which is acceptable at this coverage level but adds nothing.

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 names a specific resource — membership/status cards of an organization — and clarifies what the records contain (tiers, pricing, linked benefits), which distinguishes it from the similarly named sibling list_stamp_cards. However, it is a noun phrase that never states the verb 'list', so the agent infers the listing action from the tool name rather than the description.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_stamp_cards (stamps vs. membership tiers) or list_benefits, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent gets resource semantics but no routing guidance.

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