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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the burden is lower. The description usefully discloses the returned data surface (status, start/expiration/renewal dates, billed price, active hold) and the backing endpoint GET /customer_memberships, but says nothing about pagination behavior or the default page size of 100 that the schema exposes.

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 tight sentences that front-load the scope ('List memberships held by customers') followed by the filter dimensions. The trailing endpoint reference is mildly redundant but compact, and there is no filler prose.

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 15-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filterable axes, and the shape of the returned record, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Only pagination/sorting behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 every parameter including page, page_size, sort, expand and fields is already documented. The description only restates the filter categories at a high level and adds no syntax, formatting, or default-value 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List memberships held by customers') and names the concrete data it returns (status, dates, billed price, hold). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling goteamup_list_memberships, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool, but the 'customer memberships' phrasing is reasonably precise.

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 enumerates the filtering dimensions (customer, plan, type, status, dates, holds), which implies when the tool is useful, but it never states when to use this versus goteamup_list_memberships or goteamup_get_customer_membership, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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