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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the returned field list and the underlying GET endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior, permissions, or rate limits beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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?

Two compact sentences with no wasted wording. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the returned fields and endpoint reference.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields returned (id, code, description, rank, type, status), which helps the agent understand the response shape. Pagination details and return structure are only implied through the schema, but the essentials are covered.

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 three optional parameters (status, page_size, current_page) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond indicating the resource being listed.

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 (List) and resource (organization's membership levels), and enumerates the returned fields. It does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling neon_list_account_memberships, but the resource scope is clear enough to distinguish levels from account memberships.

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 name and purpose: use this to retrieve the organization's membership levels. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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