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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds details about the returned fields (invoiced, paid, etc.) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, permissions, or latency. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 highly efficient sentences: the first enumerates the summary contents, the second provides a concrete example question. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with one parameter and an available output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return fields and use case. It tells the agent exactly what data to expect and when to invoke.

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% for the single parameter 'name', and the description in the schema already says 'Client name to look up.' The description does not add any extra meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 it returns a single client's summary with specific fields (total invoiced, paid, outstanding, etc.) and provides an example question ('how much has Acme paid me...'), making the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from siblings like get_contact_summary or get_invoice_details by focusing on client-level financial overview.

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 client financial overview but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_contact_summary or get_invoice_details. No when-not guidance or alternative tool names are provided, though the example question gives some context.

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