Find members

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them – which fields are returned by default, that contact/DOB/address/parents data is gated behind include_contact_details, and the subtle redaction rule that an email filter match still proves the address is registered even when hidden.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the search scope before the return-shape and redaction caveats. The long parenthetical filter list is dense but each clause carries information an agent needs.

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 15-parameter, no-required-args search tool with no output schema, the description covers the filter surface, the default return fields, and the contact-detail opt-in. Pagination behavior is left entirely to the well-documented page/max_pages/page_size schema fields, which is acceptable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's filter list largely mirrors parameters the schema already documents (email, member_number, login_id, organisation_id, etc.) and its include_contact_details sentence restates the schema's own wording, adding little new parameter-level meaning.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search members') and enumerates the filter dimensions and returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the singular sibling get_member, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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: search by the documented filters, and set include_contact_details when contact data is needed. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_member or the list_* siblings, nor any exclusion guidance.

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