get_group_member_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return fields and the no_cache refresh behavior, but does not state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation nor any permission/rate constraints. Partial disclosure above the (absent) annotation baseline.

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-loads purpose and return fields before the parameter block, which is good ordering. However, the trailing :param lines simply duplicate what the schema already documents, adding mild redundancy without new 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 and no annotations, the enumerated return fields provide genuinely needed context about what the call yields. The three params are all accounted for; only permission/environment prerequisites are absent, which keeps it from a 5.

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% and every param (group_id, user_id, no_cache) already carries its own description identical to the docstring. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (get group member info for a specified member) and even enumerates the returned fields (card, nickname, role, join time, last-speak time, title), which implicitly separates it from list-oriented siblings like get_group_member_list. It stops short of naming an alternative tool directly, but the scope of 'specified member' 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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no prerequisites (e.g., that the bot must be in the group). The contrast with get_group_member_list or get_stranger_info is left entirely to inference, so the agent must guess the correct sibling on its own.

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