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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by warning that the tool 'Returns personal data' and explaining that basic=true limits results to basic public fields.

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 core purpose and return fields, then efficiently covers the personal-data warning, basic mode, search/filter capabilities, and API path. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

With 8 optional parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does well by listing returned fields, clarifying basic mode, and summarizing search/filter behavior. It omits pagination and sorting details, but those are covered by the parameter schema, so the description is nearly complete 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantic detail: basic=true returns only public fields, search targets name/email/company, and filters can target featured, familyName, or custom properties like properties.<custom-field>. It does not explain pagination or ordering behavior, but the schema already documents those parameters well.

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: 'List the active people in the membership directory,' and enumerates returned fields (name, company, position, membership type, start date, contact data, custom properties). It clearly distinguishes the plural listing operation from the sibling single-record retrieval tool glueup_get_member.

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 gives clear usage context: search by name, email, or company; filter by any property including custom fields; and use basic=true for public fields only. It does not explicitly name when to choose this over sibling tools such as glueup_get_member, but the listing scope makes the distinction clear.

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