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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing scope ('connected workspace') and what the result contains (names, stable IDs, saved defaults, counts), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the read action and returned fields, followed by the one optional flag. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or annotations.

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-only list tool with no output schema, the description does the useful work of enumerating returned fields. However, it leaves the entity_id parameter unexplained and says nothing about result size limits or pagination, which an agent needs to know for a listing call.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it only half does: 'Optionally include archived clients' explains the default behavior of include_archived, but the entity_id parameter (a UUID selecting an entity) is never mentioned or explained. Half the parameters remain undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read ... client names, stable IDs, saved defaults and counts') and enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it clearly from mutation siblings like create_client, rename_client and archive_client. It does not explicitly contrast with broader listing tools such as list_entities, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Read the connected workspace's clients' plus 'Optionally include archived clients' tells the agent the archived toggle exists but not when to use it versus listing entities or searching. There is no explicit when-not or alternative routing despite many sibling tools.

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