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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, permissions, or whether the list is complete—significant gaps for a list tool with no structured safety hints.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by filtering options. No wasted words.

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 values needn't be described, and the read-only nature is low risk. But the missing firm_id explanation and absence of pagination/limit behavior leave gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by naming status values (ACTIVE/ARCHIVED), pipeline_stage, and search. However, firm_id (with a default) is never explained, leaving one of four params undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (EAM clients) scoped to a firm, which clearly separates it from siblings like create_eam_client or update_eam_client. It doesn't explicitly contrast with detail-oriented siblings such as get_client_dossier, keeping it just below top marks.

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?

The filtering options hint at when this tool applies (browsing/filtering clients), but it never states when to prefer it over get_client_dossier or convert_prospect, nor mentions preconditions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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