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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it notes 'Returns personal data' (privacy implication) and gives the raw API endpoint (POST for a read operation), which is useful for understanding behavior. Pagination behavior is left to the schema.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and returned fields, then adds a privacy note and API endpoint. Three short sentences with little waste; the API line is somewhat extraneous for an AI agent but provides developer context.

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 7-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned ('each with its person, membership type, start date and contact data') and flags personal data. Pagination is covered by the schema. Complete enough for correct invocation.

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 all seven parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is the expected baseline (3) when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 (List) and resource (active individual people memberships), and distinguishes from company memberships by qualifying 'individual (people)'. Also lists the returned fields. Clear, but does not explicitly name sibling tools to route against.

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 description explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_individual_membership or list_members. Usage is only implied by the tool name and context.

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