get_organization_member_info

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details beyond the basic action. It does not disclose whether the member must be an active member, what type of information is returned (profile? roles? department?), or any access requirements. This leaves the tool's behavior largely opaque.

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, focused sentence that communicates the core purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 simple two-parameter lookup tool, the description is minimal but lacks important context about the return value or the relationship to sibling tools. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the scope and content of the returned member information, especially given the close sibling 'get_organization_member_info_by_user_id'.

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%, with both parameters ('memberId' and 'organizationId') having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema fully documents the parameters, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Get information') and the resource ('a member in an organization'), which is specific and matches the tool name. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_organization_member_info_by_user_id' by implying lookup by member ID rather than user ID, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 implies a straightforward use case: retrieving a member's information from an organization. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus the closely related 'get_organization_member_info_by_user_id' or 'search_organization_members', so usage guidance remains implicit.

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