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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered externally. The description adds that results carry remaining counts and expiry, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, the 'active-only' filter semantics, or regional lookup effects.

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 plus an endpoint reference; the key scope, output contents and API path are front-loaded with no wasted prose. The endpoint citation is mildly redundant but harmless.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately covers scope and return contents (counts, expiry). Only minor gaps remain around pagination and filtering caveats, which the schema partly addresses.

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 all five parameters including client_id, limit, offset, location_id and cross_regional_lookup are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, 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 a client's active memberships') and even disambiguates what a membership is here ('auto-renewing pricing options'), which separates it from sibling list tools like mindbody_list_clients or mindbody_list_client_visits. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus other client-oriented siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid client_id/RSSID). Usage is only implied from the resource name.

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