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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the specific fields returned (level, start date, finish date) and the API endpoint, which is useful context for an agent since there's no output schema. It does not cover pagination behavior or auth, but those are partly in 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a clear resource definition, followed by a use case and the endpoint. No wasted words.

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 simple list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description provides the key return fields and a use case. It omits pagination and full response structure, but the schema documents limit/offset, so it's largely complete.

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 three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., no mention of limit, offset, or constituent_id), so 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 the resource (a constituent's memberships) and the key fields returned (level, start date, finish date), and the endpoint. It implies listing but does not explicitly use a verb like 'list' nor name any sibling alternative, so it's clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicitly says 'use it to see whether someone is current or lapsed', giving a clear context. It does not specify when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., lgl_get_constituent), so it stops short of 5.

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