search_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that stats, capping, and sorting are available — essentially a restatement of parameters — and says nothing about result-size behavior, cost of includeStats, or environment resolution. Adequate but not additive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The second sentence is close to redundant with the schema, but it is brief enough to not be wasteful.

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, idempotent search tool with 100% schema coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description covers what the tool does and its optional capabilities. No output schema exists, but for a search tool the return shape is largely implied and the safety/mutation semantics are already settled by annotations.

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 all six parameters (dsn, pattern, sortBy, maxResults, includeStats, environment) are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'extended stats, result capping, and sorting' merely echoes those fields without adding syntax or interaction detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search for members in a PDS') plus a scope qualifier (wildcard pattern), which is enough to separate it from the dataset-level siblings like search_dataset and list_datasets. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied 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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_dataset, read_dataset, or list_datasets, nor any when-not conditions. The phrase 'optionally filtered by wildcard pattern' hints at usage but the reader must infer the selection criteria from the sibling names.

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