x_api_get_users_list_memberships

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states risk is read-only, required permissions (bearer/OAuth scopes), environment-selection behavior for tenant/auth resolution, common failure conditions, and a safety warning about sensitive data. This is comprehensive and goes far beyond minimal expectations.

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?

The description is long but structured with clear labeled sections including risk, permissions, parameter formats, response shape, failures, and an example. It is front-loaded and every section adds value, though the repeated 'Get List memberships' phrases are somewhat redundant. Overall, the structure aids readability despite density.

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?

Given a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It includes expected response shape, common failure conditions, auth requirements, and a concrete example. It also covers environment-specific behavior and safety warnings, ensuring an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 for the 9 parameters. It explains id, max_results, pagination_token, and the scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId/credentialKey relationship. However, it omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType entirely, and some descriptions are vague (e.g., id listed as 'unknown' despite schema indicating string). Partial but not complete compensation.

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's core statement, 'Get List memberships,' merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify that this returns memberships for a user, which is important to distinguish from sibling tools like x_api_get_lists_members. The 'Use when' section repeats the same phrase, reinforcing the tautology.

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 provides explicit 'Do not use when' guidance, including preferring x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration, and lists recommended prerequisite tools. However, the 'Use when' clause is just a restatement and does not clearly define the exact scenario for this tool versus other list-related endpoints. Still, it offers sufficient exclusions and context.

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