List member memberships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the set of returned fields, useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about pagination behavior (page/max_pages interplay), auth requirements, or rate limits beyond what the schema states.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, with the member_id hint last. The parenthetical field list is long but earns its place because no output schema exists; 'filtered with the documented parameters' is the only mildly vacuous phrase.

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 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and the key scoping parameter. Pagination semantics (page, page_size, max_pages) are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable since the schema documents them, but a note on continuation would round it out.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the page/next_page continuation pattern. The description only calls out member_id and the filterable field list, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description names a specific resource (memberships held by members) and enumerates the fields returned, which is concrete and distinguishable from siblings like list_member_credentials or get_member. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

It offers one actionable usage hint — pass member_id to scope to a single member — and mentions filtering via 'the documented parameters.' There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-an-alternative guidance (e.g., versus get_member or find_members), so usage is only implied.

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