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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already convey: readOnlyHint=false signals mutation, and destructiveHint=false suggests a non-destructive creation. Nothing is disclosed about side effects, duplicate handling, permissions, or what happens after creation.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the verb, containing no filler. However, it mostly restates the tool name and title, so while it is efficient, it does not use its brevity to add distinguishing value beyond the name.

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 input schema covers all parameters and an output schema is present, so the agent can invoke the tool mechanically. However, the description does not address the ambiguity with create_client_with_report or explain what creating a bare client means in context, leaving the description incomplete for tool selection.

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%, so the schema already explains all six parameters, including currency format and the source of folder/manager IDs. The description itself contributes no parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 clear operation and resource: 'Create a new client.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from update_client and archive_client, but it does not differentiate it from the sibling create_client_with_report, so it is not fully 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus create_client_with_report or other client-related tools. There is also no mention of prerequisites such as obtaining folder or manager IDs from list_folders/list_users; the description simply restates the operation with no contextual routing.

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