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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: page size cap of 100, the next_cursor round-trip mechanic, the meaning of the Alert status, and the Cotlet API key permission requirement.

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?

Five compact sentences, purpose front-loaded, then semantics, then pagination, then auth. The prose re-listing of all seven statuses mildly duplicates the enum in the schema, but the surrounding explanation of Alert justifies the space.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (people with plans and plan status), pagination mechanics, and the permission prerequisite. Return field detail is thin but acceptable given the annotations carry the safety profile.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it documents the pagination loop ('pass next_cursor back as cursor') and explains what the plan_status enum values mean in practice (Alert = billing issue restricting class reservations). This exceeds what the schema alone conveys.

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 the concrete resource (people/members in the gym) and what accompanies it (each plan and its status), and the second sentence states the verb 'Lists'. An agent can tell it apart from single-member tools like get_member, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Operational guidance is strong on status semantics and pagination, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement (e.g., get_member for one person, list_plan_templates for templates). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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