planner_find_member

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral burden. 'Find' implies a read-only lookup and the parenthetical explains the return purpose, but it omits permissions, matching rules/case sensitivity, result limits, and an explicit no-side-effects statement.

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 wasted words. It leads with the action, then supplies the search method and return purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated. For a simple two-parameter lookup, the description covers purpose, query semantics, and assignment context, though explicit plan_id explanation and alternative-tool routing are missing.

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 meaningfully defines the query parameter as a name or email substring; plan_id is only implied by 'plan members' but is reasonably clear from context for a two-parameter lookup.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Find plan members'), the search mechanism ('by name or email substring'), and the return purpose ('returns user ids for assignment'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list-all operation planner_list_plan_members.

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 phrase 'for assignment' implies a use context, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of planner_list_plan_members or planner_assign_task. Guidance is present but implied rather than stated.

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