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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, lowering the bar. The description does add value beyond the annotation by disclosing the returned fields and their relevance to determining current/lapsed status, which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination limits or empty-result behavior, so it's adequate but not rich.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the resource and the returned fields, then the endpoint line maps it to the LGL API. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing "LGL: GET ..." is largely redundant for an agent that already has the tool name.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back and why it would call it. Pagination behavior is handled by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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% – limit, offset, and constituent_id all carry their own descriptions including defaults and pagination semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (a constituent's memberships) and enumerates the returned fields (level, start date, finish date), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like lgl_get_constituent or lgl_list_constituent_gifts, but the resource naming is unambiguous enough to separate it.

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?

"use it to see whether someone is current or lapsed" supplies one concrete use case, which is more than nothing. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer lgl_get_constituent for basic member data), so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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