signupgenius_get_group_member

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

The annotation already provides readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds useful behavioral context: data availability is conditioned on whether the member provided it via a sign-up. This warns the agent that fields may be absent or missing, which goes beyond the annotation. It does not contradict the read-only annotation.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by clarifying detail. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 read-only operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the function and return fields. It notes the condition for data availability. However, it could be slightly more explicit about edge cases (e.g., what happens if the member did not provide the info), so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 schema documents memberId with a description, but groupId has no description. The description text does not clarify groupId or add any parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the 50% coverage gap. It mentions return fields, but not the parameters themselves.

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's function: retrieving detailed info for a group member, listing specific fields (address, phone, email). The verb 'Get' plus resource 'group member' distinguishes it from siblings like list_group_members, which lists members, and get_profile, which targets a different entity. The condition 'when the member has provided it via a sign-up' further scopes the operation.

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 usage: use this when you need detailed contact info for a single member, especially if they provided it via a sign-up. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as comparing with signupgenius_list_group_members for a list of members. This is only implicit guidance, not explicit differentiation.

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