List member credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what a credential record contains (status, reference number, start/end dates), which partially compensates for the missing output schema, but says nothing about pagination behaviour (page/max_pages/page_size) or the scale of results.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The resource definition and its field content come first, and the scoping hint is front-loaded at the end where it is easy to act on.

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's enumeration of record fields is the right kind of compensation, and all 9 input parameters are fully documented in the schema. The remaining gap is behavioural: nothing tells the agent that results are paged and that next_page/max_pages govern multi-call retrieval.

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% across all 9 parameters, including patterns, bounds and defaults, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only echoes member_id and implies the returned fields; it adds no format or filtering syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the resource precisely ('credentials held by members') and enumerates the content of each record (status, reference number, start/end dates), which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling (list_member_memberships), but the resource noun is distinct enough that an agent will not confuse them.

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?

'Pass member_id for one member's credentials' is a concrete usage instruction for the scoped case, which is more than implied guidance. However, there is no when-not guidance, no mention of how the status/category/definition_id/modified_* filters should be combined, and no alternatives named.

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