bni_chapter_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the output fields, the resolution process through bni_list_chapters, and the ~250-result cap plus low-collision-risk reasoning. It does not mention error/fallback behavior or explicitly state read-only, so it stops short of a 5.

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 three dense, purposeful sentences: core purpose, sibling differentiation, and important operational caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the most essential information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential return fields, the main limitation, and how it relates to sibling tools. The phrase 'where possible' leaves some ambiguity about fallback behavior, and a read-only statement would strengthen completeness, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that chapterName is resolved via bni_list_chapters and then used as the search keyword, and by flagging the result cap. Country is not elaborated, but the schema already covers it well.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists every member of a chapter by name, with company/profession/city — a compact roster.' It clearly differentiates itself from bni_chapter_gaps and bni_search, so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns and how it differs from close siblings.

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 explicitly names alternatives and their roles: bni_chapter_gaps analyzes professions/whitespace but omits names, and bni_search is not needed as a workaround. It also explains that the tool resolves the exact chapter name via bni_list_chapters where possible, giving clear routing and execution context.

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