Search members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses the shape of the returned records (contact info, MembershipIcon, status) and a pagination/scoping tactic for bulk scans, which is more than the annotation conveys.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the primary capability (search by text or ClientId) is front-loaded ahead of the secondary bulk-scan tip. Every clause earns its place.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, both access modes, the return payload, and a bulk-scan workflow. The one gap is that it never points to mbo_get_client for single-record retrieval, but nothing the agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 high (83%) and the schema already documents each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by explaining how two parameters interact for bulk scans, adding operational meaning that the per-field schema text does not supply on its own.

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 specific verb and resource ('Search Mindbody members') and covers both modes of operation: free-text search and direct ClientId retrieval. It also names the return payload ('raw MBO client records'), which distinguishes it from the single-record sibling mbo_get_client.

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?

It tells the agent when to use each mode (text search vs. fetching specific ClientIds) and adds a concrete bulk-scan recipe ('set includeProspects=false and raise maxPages'). It stops short of explicitly naming mbo_get_client as the alternative for single-record lookups, so routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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