search_memberships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does reveal the comment-context scoping, but it does not disclose the read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or any return value structure. The description adds only a little beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, clearly stating the tool's purpose and target use case. It is highly efficient.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and scoping but omits details like return format, pagination defaults, or any special behavior. It is sufficient for a straightforward search tool but leaves some ambiguity, so it is not fully complete.

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 60%, and the description adds some meaning for the undocumented commentable_id and commentable_type parameters by mentioning 'collection / lightbox' and 'comment context.' However, it does not explain commentable_id itself, and q/page/per_page are already well-described in the schema. This provides moderate added value, earning a 3.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('memberships'), further scoped by context ('within a comment context (collection / lightbox)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_memberships and find_membership by indicating a focused use case.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'used for assignee pickers and @-mention lookups in commenting flows.' This tells the agent when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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