get_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose behaviors like not-found handling, required permissions, or return format. For a simple getter, this is adequate but minimally transparent.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action, resource, identifying field, and container. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 2-parameter get operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. It lacks detail about return format, but that is less critical given the simplicity. It could be improved by noting expected response or error behavior.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds that 'email' is the lookup key and 'list_id' identifies the audience, which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('member'), and specifies the unique lookup key ('by email') and scope ('from an audience'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_members or search_members by indicating a single, email-identified member.

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 phrase 'specific member by email' implies the tool is intended for retrieving one known member, distinct from listing or searching. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use search_members when you don't have the exact email.' Still, the context is clear enough for most agents.

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