list_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the non-obvious, domain-specific behavior that the roster deliberately includes mid-session arrivals and departures, and that `service_end_date`/`service_end_reason` mark a departure. This is genuinely valuable context an agent could not infer from the schema. It remains silent on pagination/return cardinality and read-only guarantees.

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, then adds only the qualifiers that matter — query matching semantics, the mid-session inclusion behavior, and the member_id handoff. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still names the salient returned fields (service_end_date, service_end_reason, member_id), which an agent needs to interpret results. Missing are `session_code` semantics and any mention of result size/pagination, but for a filtered list tool this is nearly complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so for `query` (case-insensitive substring matching with concrete examples) but not for `party` (D/R/I), `chamber` (H/S), or the required `session_code`. The enum codes and session identifier are left entirely to the schema titles.

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 — the session's member roster — and names the three filters (name, chamber, party). It also tells the agent that `member_id` is the key for the member tools, which implicitly routes to siblings like get_member. It stops short of an explicit "use get_member for a single member" contrast, but the purpose is 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?

Gives a clear conditional for the main parameter ("omit it for the whole roster") and scopes the tool to a single session. It routes the agent toward the member tools via `member_id`, providing context for when to follow up. No explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the usage context is clear.

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