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

The annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: only exact_unique matches are auto-selected, ambiguous results require user choice, and no-match results trigger a user prompt about saving/assigning versus one-off data. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and workflow context. Each sentence adds behavioral guidance. The only minor issue is the dense internal phrase 'resolution.kind=exact_unique', which may not be self-explanatory but is still concise.

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 core search-and-resolve workflow is well covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, the description omits the list-all behavior implied by the optional page/limit parameters and the tool title, leaving the listing use case under-specified.

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 only 33%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented page and limit parameters, but it does not. It restates 'name or email' for search, which the schema already provides, and provides no added semantics for pagination limits or defaults.

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 action ('Search saved clients by name or email') and ties it to a concrete workflow ('before creating an invoice for a named recipient'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_client (ID lookup) and list_invoices, and matches the title's list/search framing.

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?

It gives clear, actionable context for when to call the tool: before creating an invoice with a named recipient. It also prescribes how to behave on ambiguous matches and on no matches. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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