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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring a safe read, the description adds genuine value by disclosing the response payload (visit counts, custom fields, tags) and the underlying endpoint. It stops short of mentioning pagination/return-size behavior, but the safety profile is covered by annotations and the return-content hint is a useful addition.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the two most useful filters, then the API reference. Tight and skimmable, though the endpoint string is marginally more for traceability than for agent decision-making.

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 7-param, zero-required, read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the payload contents and the intent behind the key filters. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters, including the enums. The description restates query and filterPreset semantics without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('List or search the studio's customers (members)') and even lists the returned data (visit counts, custom fields, tags), so an agent immediately knows what this does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with neighbors like momence_get_member or momence_list_customer_leads, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives parameter-level guidance ('Search by name, email or phone with query; use filterPreset=with-active-membership for current members'), which implies when each filter applies. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as momence_get_member (single lookup) or momence_list_customer_leads, so the tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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