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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: page size (up to 200), the pagination contract (pass next_cursor back as cursor), the returned fields, and an explicit auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access).

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?

Front-loads the resource and return contents, then layers in pagination and auth in a compact flow. The opening 'People in your studio with status, email, phone and memberships' fragment is slightly redundant with the following sentence, but overall it is dense and earns its 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the item shape (person_id, contact details, active membership names), pagination, and auth. It stops short of an explicit alternative-routing note, but everything needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 schema already documents all five parameters with defaults. The description restates the filter semantics (name/email, status, last change date) and pagination cursor but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 (Lists) and resource (people/members in your studio) and describes returned fields, so an agent can tell it apart from the singular zen-planner_get_member. It never explicitly names/reconciles with the zen-planner_list_prospects sibling, which is the one plausible source of confusion, so it falls short of a clean 5.

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 implies the filtering scenarios (by name/email, status, last change date) and how to page, giving implied context for use. It does not state when to use this over list_prospects or get_member, nor any exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.

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