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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the clubs/associations eligibility constraint and the raw endpoint, but says nothing about error behavior (e.g. what happens for a non-existent or non-member id) or what the response contains.

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?

It is very short and never buries the point, but it reads as clipped fragments ('One member; only available to clubs and associations.') rather than a well-formed instruction, and the endpoint restatement is largely redundant with the schema.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the eligibility gating but omits the return shape and failure modes. It is minimally adequate, not 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% and the schema already explains 'The member id (from eboekhouden_list_members)', so the description adds nothing beyond echoing the path in the endpoint form. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 names the resource ('member') and the retrieval semantics (GET /v1/member/{id}), so an agent can tell it fetches one member rather than a list. However, the phrasing 'One member' is terse and does not explicitly contrast with the sibling eboekhouden_list_members.

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?

It states the eligibility constraint ('only available to clubs and associations'), which is useful gating context, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over eboekhouden_list_members or other get_* siblings. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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