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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds pagination behavior, but it references 'next_offset', a field that does not exist in the input schema (which uses offset/limit) and is not explained as a response field, leaving the paging mechanics slightly ambiguous.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The only cost is that the second sentence introduces a field name that is not defined in the schema, adding a small ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say more about what a client record contains and how pages are signaled; instead it only hints at next_offset. Given there are three optional parameters and no annotations gaps to fill, this is adequate but thin.

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%: only business_id is documented in the schema, while limit and offset have no descriptions anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining default page size, maximum, or offset semantics, so an agent must infer them from raw constraints.

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 ('List client records'), which maps cleanly to the tool name and separates it from mutating siblings like client_save. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 pagination instruction ('Follow next_offset to retrieve every page') tells the agent how to iterate, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to use this versus businesses_list or other listing tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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