get_organization_member_info_by_user_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned information. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 the tool's complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what information is returned, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to fully guide an agent, especially without structured support from annotations or output schema.

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%, with both parameters ('organizationId' and 'userId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's implied by the tool name (e.g., it doesn't clarify if 'userId' refers to an internal ID or external identifier). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('Get information') and resource ('about a member in an organization'), specifying it's done 'by user ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_organization_member_info' (which likely lacks user ID filtering) and 'list_organization_members' (which lists multiple members). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what specific information is retrieved, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage when you have a user ID and want member info, but it doesn't compare to siblings like 'search_organization_members' or 'list_organization_members', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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