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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase "as stored" usefully signals this is a raw, unenriched record, but it does not address tenant scoping via firm_id or any access constraints. Additions are modest against an already-complete annotation set.

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?

Front-loaded verb and resource, then one dense enumeration of returned fields, closing with a sibling pointer. The field list is long but each item helps an agent judge relevance; no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not strictly required, and annotations cover safety. What remains unaddressed is the input side: the purpose and behavior of firm_id and the format expected for client_id, which an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for client_id and firm_id yet never mentions either. The default-empty firm_id in particular is ambiguous (tenant scoping? optional fallback?) and the description offers no clarification, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus resource (client's record) with an explicit enumeration of what the record contains: profile, contact details, tier, compliance, AUM, household_id. It also pre-empts confusion with get_client_team by naming that sibling and what it holds instead.

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 clearly establishes this as the entry point for a client's stored data and routes the team question to get_client_team. It doesn't state exclusions or when a different lookup (e.g., get_eam_clients) is preferable, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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