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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds meaningful context beyond them: it warns that the response contains personal data (a compliance/PII consideration) and pins the exact HTTP endpoint being wrapped, both of which annotations do not convey.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the retrieval scope and returned fields come first, followed by the PII warning and endpoint. Every clause earns its place.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields, and the annotation set covers behavior. The only remaining gap is that nothing tells the agent what error or empty-result behavior looks like for a nonexistent id, but for a one-parameter read that is a minor omission.

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 single parameter already documents its origin (from glueup_list_company_memberships), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates "by membership id" and adds nothing about format or constraints (e.g., integer, minimum 1) beyond the schema.

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 ("Get one company membership by membership id") and enumerates the returned facets (members, type, address, custom properties), which separates it from glueup_list_company_memberships and glueup_get_individual_membership. The API endpoint adds unambiguous identification.

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 only implied: the id is described as coming from glueup_list_company_memberships, which suggests a list-then-get flow, and "Returns personal data" hints at caution. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over glueup_get_member or the list tool, nor any exclusions.

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