find_membership

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the lookup scope and keys but does not state whether exactly one parameter is required, what happens if both/neither are supplied, or behavior when no membership is found. This is a meaningful gap for a find operation.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action, resource, scope, and lookup keys. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 description needs to be more self-sufficient. It communicates the basic lookup but omits required-parameter semantics and encounter behavior (e.g., duplicate matches, absence of results), which could lead an agent to invoke the tool incorrectly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters and adds the OR relationship, which the schema does not express. Still, it leaves ambiguity around mutual exclusivity and whether one is mandatory.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' with the resource 'membership', scopes it to 'current org', and clarifies lookup keys 'username OR user_id'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_memberships (plural listing) and search_memberships (broader search).

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 context is implied: use when you need exactly one membership in the current org and have either a username or user_id. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it, such as preferring get_membership or list_memberships.

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