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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds only the 'by name' scope and the 2-character minimum, while leaving unstated details like matching semantics, pagination, or result ordering. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

One front-loaded sentence conveys verb, target resources, matching criterion, and a constraint with no filler. The parenthetical minimum character count is redundant with the schema but remains immediately useful and brief.

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 single-parameter, read-only search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential facts an agent needs: what is searched, by what field, and with what minimum length. Minor gaps remain around result limits or whether archived entities are included, but these are not critical for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context: the query parameter q is interpreted as a name, not arbitrary text, and is applied to both clients and reports. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Search query' label.

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 ('Search'), resource ('clients and reports'), and search criterion ('by name'), along with the minimum query length. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_clients and list_reports, which do not perform partial-name search.

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 a use case: use this tool when you need to find clients or reports by name. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it, such as preferring list_clients/list_reports for unfiltered listing.

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