List Members

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals that unpublished records are included, which could be an unexpected disclosure, and states that full member records are returned as JSON. These details supplement the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradiction.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or 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?

For a no-parameter list operation with robust annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does (list all member success stories), the important scope (including unpublished), and the return format (full records as JSON). The openWorldHint=false aligns with 'all', and the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage, so the description has no need to explain parameters. The baseline score of 4 applies because there is nothing to add.

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The description specifies 'List all member success stories' with the scope 'including unpublished ones', clearly identifying the resource and the exact operation. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_events and list_leads through the resource name and the scope detail.

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 clear context: it lists the complete member set, including unpublished records, which tells the agent when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but given there is no get_member sibling, the absence of exclusions is acceptable.

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