Get Tagged Member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered there. The description's "reads community data" simply echoes the readOnly annotation and adds no extra context such as error behavior, pagination, or what the returned tagged-member record contains.

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?

Two extremely short sentences with no padding or wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded. However, this is brevity through omission rather than disciplined conciseness, so it earns only a middling score.

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?

For a read tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what a "tagged member" is relative to plain members and tags. With no return-format, no field, and no relationship context, an agent cannot confidently distinguish this call from get_member or list_tagged_members.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema itself (including the useful note that account selects credentials, not a remote community ID). The description contributes nothing about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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?

"Get Tagged Member. Reads community data." restates the tool name/title almost verbatim and adds only the generic gloss "reads community data." It never clarifies what a tagged member is or how this differs from sibling readers like get_member, list_tagged_members, or get_member_tag.

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 mention of the sibling tools it competes with (list_tagged_members, tag_member, untag_member), and no stated prerequisites beyond the schema-level requirement of tagged_member_id.

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