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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint=true`, `idempotentHint=true`, and `destructiveHint=false`, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only active memberships are returned and lists the default fields, which is useful context, but it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or response shape beyond the field list.

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?

The description is two tight sentences plus the API endpoint; the key purpose and field scope are front-loaded, and every sentence adds relevant information without repetition.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough: it names the returned fields, explains the `basic` shortcut, and mentions filtering. It could be stronger by describing pagination or total behavior, but the schema covers pagination parameters and the annotations cover safety.

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%, so the schema already documents `basic`, `limit`, `order`, `fields`, `offset`, `search`, `filters`, and `descending`. The description adds a few high-level examples for `basic` and filters, but most parameter semantics are already in the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it lists active company memberships and names the exact fields returned. It clearly distinguishes this from `glueup_get_company_membership` (single membership) and `glueup_list_individual_memberships` by emphasizing company memberships in the directory.

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 gives clear context for use: browsing active company memberships, using `basic=true` for a reduced field set, and filtering by featured, industryCode, name prefix, and more. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or route to a sibling, but the listing context is clear enough.

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