cpu_get_syndicate_membership

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool is a public read, describes the exact non-member vs. member response shapes, lists the member fields returned, and explicitly notes player-authored name/link are excluded.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and the key usage option, the second explains response semantics, and the third covers exclusions and access level. Everything earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes responsibility for explaining return values. It covers both member and non-member cases, enumerates member-visible fields, and clarifies public read access. This is complete for a low-complexity, single-parameter tool.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single optional 'address' parameter, including the omit behavior. The description reinforces this but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so the high-coverage 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a wallet belongs to a syndicate.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like cpu_get_syndicate (which retrieves syndicate details) and cpu_get_syndicate_player_content (player content), making the tool's intent unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear usage context: omit the address to check your own membership, and explains that a non-member gets a plain 'not a member' response rather than an error. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage intent is clear.

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