Get member (complete info)

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by disclosing that the payload is a composite spanning profile, icon, services, contracts, and balances, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or payload size/pagination for a heavy aggregate call.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the endpoint and then lists the returned facets. No filler, no repetition of schema or title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so by enumerating the record's sections. What is missing is any note on the aggregate call's cost, latency, or whether the listed sections can be partial/empty.

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 both parameters (siteId, clientId) are self-documented, including the m_... token form. The description adds no parameter-level 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?

Names a specific verb+resource (GET /client/clientcompleteinfo) and enumerates the record's contents (profile, membership icon, services, contracts, balances), which implicitly separates it from the narrower siblings mbo_get_client_services and mbo_get_client_contracts by promising everything 'in a single call.' It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 'in a single call' implies this is the aggregate lookup to prefer over the per-section tools, but no explicit when-to-use or prerequisite guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent it must first run mbo_search_clients to obtain a clientId, even though the sibling set makes that workflow likely.

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