get_account_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get details' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive lookup, but this is never stated and no side effects, auth requirements, or rate-limit behavior are disclosed. The parenthetical clarifies the shape of what comes back, which is modest added value.

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?

One well-formed sentence that puts the action and the retrieval key up front with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though the trailing field list mixes return-value detail into the purpose statement.

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 2-parameter, fully-schema-documented getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose and gives a hint at the returned shape (user, roles, policies, status). The main gap is routing versus the list_account_members sibling that exists in the toolset.

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% (both account_id and member_id are documented as required IDs), so the baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical lists return fields rather than adding meaning to the parameters, so it does not compensate or exceed the schema.

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 (Get) and resource (account member), and adds scope via 'by member ID' plus the returned fields (user, roles, policies, status). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_account_members through the word 'specific', but never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 only implied: retrieving one member by ID contrasts with listing all members, but there is no explicit 'use this when you have a member_id, otherwise use list_account_members' guidance and no prerequisites (e.g., permissions) stated.

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