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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's added value is limited to enumerating returned fields and noting the status values (SUCCEEDED/FAILED). It says nothing about pagination behavior or the default result set size despite page_size and current_page parameters existing.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the returned fields in one dense sentence, then closes with the underlying endpoint. Every clause carries information; the endpoint citation is marginally extraneous but cheap and useful for API-literate agents.

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 usefully compensates by listing the fields returned and example status values. Combined with full schema coverage for the seven parameters and the readOnly annotation, the definition covers what an agent needs, though pagination defaults remain unstated.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description restates two filters (active, primary active) that the schema already explains, adding no syntax or default-behavior detail beyond it.

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 one account's membership history') and enumerates the returned data (level, term, dates, fee, status, auto-renewal). It implicitly separates itself from the singular neon_get_membership and from neon_list_membership_levels, but never names a sibling explicitly to make the distinction 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?

The description hints at selection via 'Filter to active or the primary active membership,' which tells the agent these filters exist but not when one should be preferred over the other. There is no statement of when to use this versus neon_get_membership or the account-listing siblings, so usage is only implied.

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