members_get_ban

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavior beyond this by specifying the return format `{user_id, username, reason}` and the 404 response when a user is not banned, which is useful for error handling.

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 compact and well-organized with three labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Returns) in under 60 words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no extraneous information.

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 single-ban lookup, the description covers purpose, usage context, return shape, and not-found behavior. Combined with full schema annotations and the presence of an output schema, no critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described as 'User to look up' and 'Guild to inspect.' The description does not add further parameter syntax, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Look up a single ban entry by user ID' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like members_list_bans, members_ban, and members_unban. The 'When to use' section reinforces the specific purpose of confirming ban status.

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 'When to use' section explicitly says 'Confirm whether a user is currently banned and why,' providing a clear use context. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as noting that members_list_bans should be used for retrieving all bans, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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