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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds useful context that results come from an old system and support ACTIVE/PAST status plus search and paging, but it omits pagination behavior, permissions, and return shape.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words, and the key scope (imported members from an old system) is front-loaded.

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 five-parameter list tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the definition is only minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and filters but leaves return values and search semantics unexplained.

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 only 20%, so the description should compensate more. It does clarify the ACTIVE/PAST status values and that search and paging exist, but it does not explain what the search field matches, how paging defaults work, or the organizationId relationship beyond the schema's own note.

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: members imported from a gym's old system, with status values ACTIVE/PAST and search/paging support. It distinguishes reasonably well from siblings like list_gym_imports and list_gym_imported_sales, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_gym_member_record, search_gym_class_members, or list_gym_imports. The imported-member context implies appropriate use, but no when/when-not conditions or alternative routing are stated.

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