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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read. The description usefully adds the returned field set and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior or the fact that frozen memberships are excluded unless includeFrozen is set, despite naming 'freeze state' as a return field.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence naming the resource and its payload, followed by a short endpoint reference. It is efficient, though the raw endpoint string adds little for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the schema fully covers the four inputs. Remaining gaps are minor: no note that frozen memberships require the includeFrozen flag.

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 four parameters (memberId, page, pageSize, includeFrozen) are already documented with defaults and ranges. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that baseline.

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 scoped to one member, and enumerates exactly what is returned (type, dates, credits left, usage limits, freeze state). It is cleanly distinguishable from the bulk sibling momence_list_memberships and from momence_get_member.

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 scope ('one member's active subscriptions'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer momence_list_memberships or momence_get_member, and no exclusions stated.

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