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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating the scope ('only the connected user's membership') and the specific data returned, which goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core action and scope, then add the exclusion. Every clause earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 simple, one-parameter, read-only tool, this definition is complete: it states the safety profile via annotations, explains what data is returned, and clarifies scope. No output schema is needed for this kind of lookup, and the missing pieces (error cases) are not essential for selecting or invoking it correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including guidance that the guild_id comes from list_guilds. The description reinforces that the lookup is for a 'specific server' but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource (authorized user's own membership in a guild), and explicit fields (nickname, role ids, join date, Boost start date). It also distinguishes itself by clarifying it is not about other members or message content, which separates it from broader or member-focused tools.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need the connected user's membership details for a specific guild. It also provides an exclusion ('not other members or message content'), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance beyond that.

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