list-members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states a quota cost (1 quota unit per call) and a specific error condition (403 unless the channel is an active YPP member with memberships enabled). This is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not describe return format or pagination, but those are partially inferable from the schema parameters.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second adds quota and gating information. Both sentences are relevant and directly useful. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 list tool with a well-documented schema, the description covers purpose, quota, and a major error condition. Since there is no output schema, it doesn't explain return values, but that is not required. It could be slightly more explicit about how it relates to list-membership-levels, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add much. The description mentions the resource but does not elaborate on parameter-specific nuances beyond what the schema already says. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the target resource ('members of your channel's memberships program'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-channels and list-membership-levels. The verb+resource structure leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description provides context for when to use the tool (for channels with memberships enabled) and includes a monetization gating condition, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The usage context is implied by the purpose rather than stated as guidance.

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