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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /customer_memberships) and the returned field set (status, dates, billed price, active hold), which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior or how the default 100-per-page interacts with filtering.

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 compact sentences front-load the returned fields and filter options, then close with the API endpoint. No filler, though the parenthetical status enumeration duplicates the schema enum rather than adding value.

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 rich 15-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (statuses, dates, billed price, hold state) and what can be filtered. It is close to complete; only pagination/return-shape behavior is left 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 the schema already documents all 15 parameters, including the status enum and date bounds. The description's filter list ('customer, membership plan, type, status, dates or holds') only restates those parameters at a higher level without adding format or constraint detail, 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') with clear scope. It implies a distinction from plan-level listings, but never names the sibling tools goteamup_list_memberships or goteamup_get_customer_membership, so differentiation depends on inference.

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 filterable dimensions (customer, membership plan, type, status, dates, holds), which implies the contexts in which the tool is useful, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-tool guidance.

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