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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description need not restate that. It adds the underlying API route (POST /v1/memberships:list), which is marginal context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result counts, or empty-result handling despite exposing page_size and page_token.

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 short fragments with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded first. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, and the API route is placed last, which is reasonable.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and a mostly documented schema, this is close to sufficient; the main omission is any hint that results are paginated and that page_token should be followed until exhausted, which matters because required company_id scoping is already covered by the schema.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented, including the critical company_id provenance hint. The description's 'Filter by name' loosely maps to name_like, but that parameter has no schema description, so the description adds only partial clarity on matching semantics (substring? exact? case-sensitive?).

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 a specific verb and resource ('List membership plans'), matching the title exactly. It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely named sibling moego_list_membership_subscriptions, leaving an agent to infer the difference between plans and subscriptions from the name alone.

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?

The only usage hint is 'Filter by name', which describes a capability rather than a condition for selecting this tool. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool (e.g. membership subscriptions) is named.

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