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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned data model (status enum values, client, price in cents, interval, term, next charge date), which matters since no output schema exists. It stops short of describing pagination or result limits.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the resource and the field list, with a short GraphQL mapping note appended. No filler 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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotations, the definition is nearly complete, and the field enumeration compensates for the missing output schema. Only the absence of pagination/scope notes keeps it from being fully complete.

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% (after/first are fully documented in the schema), so the description does the minimum here. It adds no cursor or page-size semantics beyond what the structured fields already provide. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('List') and resource ('client memberships sold by the business'), and even enumerates the returned attributes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as boulevard_list_clients or boulevard_list_orders.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name (list memberships), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of filtering or pagination behavior. An agent can infer its purpose but gets no routing guidance versus adjacent tools.

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