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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that these are auto-renewing memberships and that results include remaining counts and expiry, but it does not describe pagination behavior or how 'active' is determined beyond the annotations.

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 delivering the resource, a clarifying synonym, the returned fields, and the backing endpoint — no wasted prose.

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 partially compensates by naming the return fields (remaining counts, expiry). Combined with 100% schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though return-shape detail is thin.

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's RSSID note and the location_id/cross_regional_lookup interaction) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level 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 a client's active memberships') and clarifies the domain term with 'auto-renewing pricing options', which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like mindbody_list_client_visits or mindbody_get_client_account_balances.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource (look up a client's memberships) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternative tools for related data such as balances or visits. The 'active' qualifier is the only scoping hint.

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