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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's remaining job is small. It adds the returned field set and the GraphQL field mapping ('memberships'), but says nothing about ordering, result limits, or how pagination terminates.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with the field list packed economically after a dash. The trailing 'GraphQL: memberships' is mildly internal but earns its place as a backend mapping hint.

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 usefully enumerates returned fields (status enum values, price in cents, interval, term, next charge date), which is exactly what's needed. Only pagination behavior and any ordering guarantees are left unstated.

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%, so both pagination parameters (after, first) are fully documented in the schema and the description need not repeat them. It adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline here.

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 enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools (list_clients, list_orders, list_products), though the resource is unique among them.

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 gives scope ('sold by the business') but no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. It never mentions that results are paginated or how to page further, which is the one usage decision an agent must make here.

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