mc_getMember

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose, but omits crucial details such as whether the operation is read-only (likely but unstated), error handling for missing email or audienceId, potential rate limits, or what specific details are returned. The minimal description fails to compensate for the missing annotations.

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 extremely concise—a single, front-loaded phrase. Every word earns its place, but the trade-off is reduced informativeness. For a tool with only two parameters, this brevity is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'member details' include, how errors are handled, or the relationship between audienceId and email. The agent is left with significant gaps about the tool's behavior and expected output.

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 100% with both parameters already described: 'email' as 'The member's email address' and 'audienceId' as 'The unique ID for the audience (list)'. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 'Get member details by email' clearly states the action (get) and the target resource (member details) along with the identifying method (by email). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like mc_listMembers (which lists all members) and other get tools that target different resources (account, audience, etc.).

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mc_listMembers or mc_getAccount. There is no mention of preconditions, context where this tool is appropriate, or scenarios where it should be avoided. The lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer without support.

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