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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose an important behavioral prerequisite (OAuth authorization) and clarifies that the data belongs to the connected account. It does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe error handling for missing authorization, but for a simple zero-parameter query the disclosure is adequate.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the concrete data fields and ends with the essential OAuth requirement. Every word earns its place with 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the exact fields returned. Combined with zero parameters and a clear account-scoping statement, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly. It could add details about the expected data format, but nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing about parameters needs explanation.

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 resource (the connected account's membership) and enumerates the returned data fields: member number, level, points, and year-to-date spending. This distinguishes it from siblings like my_orders and get_shop_info, though it omits an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'get'.

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 phrase '已連接帳號的會員本人' gives clear context that this tool is for the currently authorized member's data, and the OAuth note signals when it applies. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where a sibling tool like my_orders would be more appropriate.

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