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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on not-found behavior, tenancy scoping, or permissions — so it is only minimally adequate.

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?

One short sentence with the key and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it leaves no room for the contextual detail a reader might want.

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 trivial one-parameter read with rich annotations, very little is needed, but with no output schema the description could have said what a returned invoice_client contains or referenced the related list/search tools. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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% with a single required id parameter that is already documented as 'The invoice_client id.' The description merely restates that, adding no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one invoice_client') plus the lookup key ('by id'), which clearly separates it from invoice_client_list and invoice_client_search. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the singular/id framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single record when you already have its id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over invoice_client_search or invoice_client_list, and no note on what happens with an unknown id.

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