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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: an account-type eligibility gate with a named error code and pagination mechanics. It stops short of describing rate limits, sorting, or default result ordering.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and the eligibility constraint before pagination and route details. No wasted words, though the fragments are slightly telegraphic.

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 paged list with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: eligibility, error signal, and pagination. It does not summarize that filters (name/city/email/match) can be combined, but the schema carries that detail.

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 all seven parameters including enum and range bounds are already documented; the description only restates the offset/next_offset convention that the schema itself explains. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') plus a scope constraint that no sibling shares. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g. get_member) to contrast with, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 a concrete availability condition ('only available to clubs and associations') and the failure signal (MEM_056), which tells the agent when this call is valid. It does not name an alternative tool for other account types, but the precondition is clear.

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