Get member services

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds useful return-content context (Current flags, remaining counts, expirations) but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or whether non-current services are included.

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?

One sentence, endpoint front-loaded, and every clause earns its place by naming the returned data. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates return fields, but it leaves the required clientId parameter completely undescribed and gives no filtering or scoping behavior. Adequate but with a clear gap on the one mandatory parameter.

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 coverage is only 50%: siteId is documented in the schema, but the required clientId has no description anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the documented gap.

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+resource: a client's purchased services, then enumerates the returned fields (memberships, class packs, intro offers, Current flags, remaining counts, expiration dates). This implicitly separates it from siblings like mbo_get_client_contracts and mbo_get_services, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus mbo_get_services (site catalog) or mbo_get_client_contracts. Usage is only inferable from the resource name, with no exclusions or prerequisites given.

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