get_member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about what happens when the member is not found, ambiguity between display name and username, or permission requirements.

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 short sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and no wasted words. It is a fragment rather than a structured description, which limits how much it can convey, but nothing in it is redundant.

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 three parameters fully documented in the schema and annotations covering the read-only nature, the main remaining gap is return-value behavior, which the description only partially fills by listing field names. For a simple lookup tool this is adequate but leaves resolution and error behavior unspecified.

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%, so member, bot, and server are all documented in the schema itself, including the accepted identifier formats. The description adds no additional meaning about how those parameters interact, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific resource and scope: details of exactly one member, with the fields it returns (names, roles, join date, timeout). That clearly separates it from list_members, though it never names that sibling or otherwise states the singular-vs-list distinction explicitly.

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 guidance, no preconditions, and no pointer to an alternative such as list_members for bulk lookups. An agent can infer that this is the single-member lookup, but the description supplies no routing help of its own.

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