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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and it states what is included in the response (financial summary, recent sessions). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or the effect of optional parameters like includeHistory and includeFinancials.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 read operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and key response components, but it lacks detail on parameter behavior, return format, or edge cases. It is adequate for a simple get but leaves some gaps given the missing annotations and schema descriptions.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It partially does by mentioning financial summary and recent sessions, which likely correspond to includeFinancials and includeHistory, but it does not explain any other parameters (orgSlug, clientId, apiKey) or clarify how the booleans control the response.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'client', and specifies the scope: complete details including financial summary and recent sessions. This distinguishes it from siblings like client_list (which lists clients) and client_update (which modifies clients).

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 description implies usage for fetching a single client's detailed information, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like client_list or finance_client_balance. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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