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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the default-to-active-records filtering (a subtle trap an agent would otherwise miss), the exact fields search hits, and the full set of filtermode options beyond the schema's example list. It does not mention pagination limits or rate limiting.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and entity definition, then packs search scope, defaults, and filter modes into one dense but readable sentence. The filtermode enumeration partially duplicates the schema, which is the only mild waste.

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 no output schema, the description covers the critical unknown (default active-only filtering), the search surface, and the filter vocabulary. Sort, paging, and per_page are fully documented in the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by enumerating filtermode values (with_pending_activities, with_live_opportunities, bookable) that the schema description only hints at with 'e.g.', and by restating which fields search matches.

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 and resource ('List members') and goes further by defining what a member is in this system — Current RMS's single record type covering Organisations, Contacts, Venues and Users — which is essential domain context an agent cannot infer. Implicitly distinct from the get_member/create_member/update_member siblings.

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?

Gives strong operational context: free-text search covers specific fields, results default to active records, and the filtermode values enumerate the ways to widen or narrow scope. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_member instead, but the list-vs-single-record distinction is clear from the name.

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