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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: it returns personal data (a sensitivity disclosure the annotations cannot express) and names the underlying endpoint. Return shape and error behavior are still absent.

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 sentences with zero filler; the action and scope come first, the sensitivity note and endpoint follow. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 one-parameter single-record getter with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is close to sufficient: the agent knows what it retrieves, what it costs in sensitivity terms, and where the id comes from. Only the shape of the returned membership record is unaddressed.

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 the single parameter is fully documented with type, range and provenance, so the schema carries the load. The description only restates 'by membership id' and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already says.

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 individual membership by membership id') and the singular 'one' plus 'individual' cleanly separates it from glueup_list_individual_memberships and glueup_get_company_membership. An agent can pick it out of the sibling list without opening the schema.

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?

The phrase 'by membership id' and the schema note '(from glueup_list_individual_memberships)' imply the lookup workflow, but the description itself never states when to use this versus the list or company variants, nor any preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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