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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it doesn't state whether this is read-only, whether pagination applies, what permissions are required, or what including ended members does. The word 'current' implies a filtered default but leaves that behavior ambiguous rather than explained.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and the useful returned fields. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity contributes to the gaps in parameter and behavioral coverage.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but everything else is missing: no annotations, zero parameter documentation, and no explanation of the include_ended behavior that materially changes the result set. For a two-parameter listing tool at 0% schema coverage, this is inadequate.

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 0% across 2 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The required shop_id is never mentioned, and include_ended (a string, notably not a boolean) is not explained at all — its name and type alone are confusing without description context.

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 clearly identifies the resource (members of a shop) and the key fields returned (role, start date). It is distinguishable from sibling mutators like members_invite or members_end by being a listing operation, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. Clear verb+resource intent even if phrased as a noun phrase.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus members_permissions or how it relates to the member-management siblings. The word 'current' hints at a default exclusion of ended members, but there is no explicit 'when to use / when not to use' statement or mention of the include_ended toggle as a decision point.

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