signupgenius_get_group_member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data scope are covered. The description adds one genuinely non-redundant behavioral fact: the contact fields are only present if the member supplied them during a sign-up, i.e. results can be partially empty. It says nothing about error behavior for invalid IDs or rate limits.

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?

A single sentence with the verb, resource, and returned fields front-loaded, followed by the availability caveat. Nothing is redundant, though the trailing 'when the member has provided it via a sign-up' clause is slightly loose phrasing that could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the three fields returned, which partly compensates. It leaves the groupId parameter unexplained and gives no guidance on what happens when a member has not provided contact info (empty fields vs. error), which an agent needs for a lookup tool.

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 50%: memberId is documented in the schema as the 'communitymemberid returned by signupgenius_list_group_members', but groupId has no schema description and the tool description does not explain it either. The description adds no format, type, or sourcing information beyond what the schema already carries.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed info for a group member') and even enumerates the returned fields (address, phone, email), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not name or contrast itself with the closest sibling, signupgenius_list_group_members, which is the natural disambiguation partner.

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 phrase 'when the member has provided it via a sign-up' implies a usage condition (fields may be empty if the member never supplied them), which is a useful implicit guideline. However, it never states when to call this versus signupgenius_list_group_members or signupgenius_add_group_member, so routing is left to inference.

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