beel_get_member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific endpoint and the note that output matches the list shape, which provides useful contextual detail. However, it doesn't discuss error handling, pagination, or other behavioral traits, though the annotations lower the burden.

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 minimal and efficient: a single-sentence purpose followed by the endpoint. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes the endpoint for clarity, with no unnecessary filler. Every word 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 simple GET-by-ID operation with two well-documented parameters, the description is complete. It states what is returned, references the output shape from the list endpoint to set expectations, and benefits from annotations covering safety. No additional information is needed for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with both 'account_id' and 'member_id' fully described. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only states that the tool returns one member. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 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 tool returns one member of an account, with a specific verb (returns) and resource (member). It also notes the output shape matches the list endpoint, adding context. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling like 'beel_list_members' to differentiate, though the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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 use for retrieving a single member by mentioning 'one member' and referencing the list shape, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'beel_list_members' or 'beel_patch_member'. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the routing to the agent's inference.

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