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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that private notes and Web-specific rich HTML are never exposed, and that the result is the canonical structured billing-party subset. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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: the first front-loads the core action and scope, the second adds an important transparency guarantee. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of schema or annotation data.

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 single-parameter read with a full output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, what is intentionally not returned, and the scope ('company-owned'). No critical behavioral or usage context is missing.

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 100%, and the id parameter is already described as 'Company-owned saved client ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that the client is company-owned, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('client'), and narrows scope to 'canonical structured billing-party fields' for 'one company-owned saved client'. It clearly distinguishes itself from list_clients and update_client by emphasizing a single, read-only, canonical representation.

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 saved client's canonical billing fields, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over list_clients or when not to use it. The note about private notes and rich HTML being never exposed suggests limitations, but no alternative tools or explicit exclusions are named.

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