Contract Testing: Admin Get Team User

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the admin authorization context and confirms the operation is a read-only membership check, but it does not disclose return shape, error behavior, or behavior when the team or user does not exist. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 key sentence is front-loaded and easy to parse, and the overall description is compact. However, the 'Toolset: Admin' line and the full Parameters section duplicate the name and input schema, creating minor redundancy that prevents a perfect score.

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 simple read-only, two-parameter membership check, the description provides the essential information: the operation, both required UUIDs, and the admin scope. The lack of an output schema and any mention of the return value (e.g., boolean) is a small gap, but not severe for this tool's complexity.

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%, and the description's parameter list repeats the schema's teamId and userId descriptions almost verbatim. It adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 states a concrete operation: checking whether a specific user is a member of a team, with admin scope. This is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby sibling tools such as contract-testing_admin_get_user, contract-testing_admin_get_team, or contract-testing_admin_list_team_users.

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 use case is implied by 'Check if a specific user is a member of a team' and the 'Toolset: Admin' label, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when a different admin tool would be more appropriate.

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