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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the response shape, pagination pattern, and default page size. It doesn't mention ordering or edge cases, but the annotations lower the burden and the added detail is valuable.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: output shape, pagination/filter behavior, and the alternative tool. Each sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes the return structure and pagination. It also flags the alternative for more advanced filters. Minor details about `last`/`before` behavior are missing, but the schema describes them, making this sufficient for a read-only list.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the `first` default and how `after` uses the last edge's cursor, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 states the tool lists members and details the Relay connection edge/node structure, including specific fields. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and get_member. The resource and verb are unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly explains pagination with `first` + `after` and cursor usage, the `activeOnly` filter, and the `first` default. It also tells the agent when to use memberful_query instead, providing a clear when-not and alternative.

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