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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new context: it flags that the result contains personal data, enumerates the payload (membership, contact data, custom properties), and gives the underlying endpoint. No auth or rate-limit notes, but the PII flag is the important behavioral signal here.

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 plus the endpoint, all front-loaded with the verb and resource first. Tight overall; the endpoint clause is mildly redundant but cheap.

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 read with no output schema, the description covers what it returns at field-group level plus the PII caveat. A slightly richer return-shape note would be the only addition, but this is close to sufficient.

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 is fully documented there, including its source field (individualMember.id). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Get one person') plus resource ('membership directory') plus the keying parameter ('by member id'), and it names what comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling glueup_list_members, which lists many.

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: retrieving a single person by id. The description never explicitly contrasts with glueup_list_members or says when not to use it, and the 'id comes from glueup_list_members' pointer lives only in the schema, not the description.

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