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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond them: it specifies the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with access to this app) and the exact shape of data returned. It omits pagination/volume limits for recent activity, keeping it from a 5.

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 workflow precondition is well front-loaded at the end, but the middle sentence largely restates the opening sentence (plans with status and next bill date appear twice). One merged sentence would carry the same information with less 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?

With no output schema, the description properly takes on the burden of describing return values, and it also flags the auth requirement. For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema this is nearly complete; only the granularity/limits of "recent" activity and check-ins is left undefined.

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% and the single member_id parameter already carries a description ("Member ID from list_members"). The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail for the parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3 is appropriate for a 1-param tool with full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (member), and the description enumerates exactly what the response contains — profile, plans with status/next bill date/Plan ID, and recent reservations and check-ins. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_members (singular retrieval vs. list) without needing the schema.

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?

"Call it before switching, pausing or cancelling a plan" gives an explicit workflow condition that ties it to the sibling mutation tools (pushpress_switch_member_plan, pushpress_pause_member_plan, pushpress_cancel_member_plan). It stops short of naming alternatives for read-only lookups, but the when-to-use context is clear and actionable.

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