bni_member_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only fetch of public data, lists what is returned, and flags conditional availability ('if resolvable', 'where available'). It does not mention error cases or rate limits, but those are less critical for a public profile fetch.

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 dense sentence with no filler; every clause adds value, including the note about the Ideal Referral Partner section. It is slightly long but appropriately detailed for the complexity of the returned data.

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 there is no output schema, the description effectively documents the return payload by listing the profile fields and bio sections. It also provides practical guidance on using the Ideal Referral Partner section. The required parameters and their origins are covered, making the tool invocable without missing information.

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 the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('member's full public profile') and enumerates the exact fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like bni_enrich_member or bni_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?

The description implies this tool is for retrieving detailed profile data after a search, especially because the schema notes that site and encryptedMemberId come from bni_search results. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over bni_enrich_member or mention any exclusions.

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