list_membership_levels

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

The description does not add behavioral info beyond the annotations readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Since annotations adequately declare the read-only and non-exhaustive nature, the description does not need to repeat this, but adds no extra value. No contradiction.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is highly concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the tool returns a list of membership levels. However, it omits details about pagination, filtering, or the specific fields in the response, which could be inferred but are not explicit.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is trivially covered. According to the guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as none exist.

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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'membership levels defined in LGL'. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_memberships, which list a different entity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_membership_level for a single level or list_memberships for memberships. The description implicitly suggests it is for retrieving all levels, but lacks explicit context.

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