Get member

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, but the description adds the response-composition contract: names and statuses by default, contact details/DOB/address/parents' details gated behind include_contact_details, and free-form additional details and opt-in answers never returned. That tells the agent exactly what it will and will not get back, which is exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the opt-in toggle, then the never-returned exclusions. No filler and no repetition of the schema's field list.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing the response shape, and it does so by enumerating returned aggregates and default/gated/never-returned fields. With only two parameters, both covered in the schema, nothing material is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description extends include_contact_details beyond the schema's wording by adding address and parents' details to the gated set. It also indirectly reinforces member_id's role by pairing 'One member' with a single-member lookup.

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 resource ('One member') plus an explicit inventory of the aggregates returned: memberships, organisations with roles, credentials, event bookings and linked family members. This scope statement lets an agent distinguish it from list_member_memberships, list_member_credentials and find_members without opening any schema.

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 rather than stated: the agent can infer it should call this for a single member's consolidated profile, and the description clarifies when contact data appears. But no alternative is named (find_members for lookup, list_member_* for narrow slices), so tool 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.