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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format ('same fields as list_members for one row') and implies a read-only 'fetch' operation, but it does not disclose error behavior, whether the member must exist, or any authorization requirements. It adds some context beyond the schema but leaves gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause contributes: it specifies the identifier and clarifies the output shape by referencing list_members. No unnecessary words or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context by linking the return fields to list_members. However, it omits behavior for not-found cases or errors, which would make it fully complete. For a simple fetch, this is a minor gap.

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%; the parameter 'id' already has a detailed description, format, and pattern. The tool description simply restates 'profile uuid' and references list_members, which adds marginal value but essentially duplicates schema information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action ('Fetch a single member'), the resource ('member'), and the method ('by profile uuid'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_members (by emphasizing 'single' vs. the list) and get_member_points (by the resource being member, not points).

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 when to use this tool: when you need one member identified by profile uuid. It also clarifies the output is a single row with same fields as list_members, which suggests using this instead of list_members for a specific member. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions for edge cases.

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