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

With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already covering safety, the description adds meaningful context by disclosing exactly what the payload contains: all attributes, consent type, mailing activity, and custom fields. It does not mention behavior when the member is not found or any error/rate-limit conditions, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence lists the member scope and return contents, followed by the endpoint. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description usefully enumerates the return contents and points to cyberimpact_list_custom_fields for custom field key interpretation. It is nearly complete for a read tool, though a note on missing-member behavior would close the remaining 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 coverage is 100% and already documents the single key parameter as an email address or numeric id. The description restates the same accepted forms without adding format constraints or examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it retrieves a single member by email or id and enumerates the returned data (attributes, consent, mailings, custom fields), distinguishing it from list_members by scope. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and does not name sibling tools it should not be confused with, so it stops short of a 5.

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—use when you need one member's full record—but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_member_consent, get_member_groups, or get_member_mailings. The only routing hint is to see cyberimpact_list_custom_fields for interpreting custom field keys, not for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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