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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: server-side field exclusion, bounded results, the limit cap, and hasMore truncation reporting. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Every sentence contributes meaningful information: what is returned, what is excluded, and how pagination/filtering work. The most important scoping details are front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

The description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers the return scope, exclusions, optional filtering, pagination limits, and truncation reporting, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not the description's responsibility.

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 both limit and salonId fully described in the schema. The description restates the default/maximum and filtering behavior but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('clients'), and further specifies a bounded page within the authenticated user's organization. The scope is precise and the tool is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_client and list_appointments.

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 gives clear context: this is for lightweight appointment workflow chaining and intentionally excludes full profile data. It implies that richer client details would come from get_client, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative.

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