Get member

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: exactly which fields are exposed (online status, time zone) and an explicit privacy guarantee ('Never their email or other private details').

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?

Front-loaded and generally tight, but the two sentences restate the same field list (name, bio, role, level, points) almost verbatim, so one sentence could be trimmed without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned profile fields and privacy boundaries, which is the main thing an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for a missing member, but the core is complete for a simple read 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the member_id provenance. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('One member's profile in a group') and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent can distinguish it from list_members/search_members at a glance. Scope is precise: a single member within a named group.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'profile card when you click a member' framing, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It never says to call list_members/search_members first to obtain the member_id, leaving that routing to the schema.

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