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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. Beyond that, the description adds almost nothing: it does not say whether matching is partial/prefix, whether it is case-insensitive, whether it searches across all clients or a scoped tenant, or what happens when zero or many clients match.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is a fragment rather than a front-loaded sentence stating the action and its result, and its brevity comes at the cost of missing information rather than being genuinely trim.

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 search tool in a crowded namespace containing get_client, list_clients, add_client, and update_client, the definition should say how find_client differs and what it returns (client cards, presumably a list). With no output schema and no sibling differentiation, an agent lacks the information needed to route correctly.

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%, with both parameters documented (query: "Name, email or phone (or a part of one)" and limit default 10, max 50). The description merely restates the query semantics already present in the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate with no added value.

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?

"Client cards matching a name, email or phone" conveys the resource and that it is a lookup, but it is a noun fragment with no verb and it does not distinguish this from siblings like list_clients, get_client, or find_open_slots. An agent can guess it searches clients, but the precise action (search vs. list vs. retrieve by id) is inferred from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over list_clients for lookup-style queries, or over get_client when an id is known. The only hint is the schema's minLength 2 on query, which implies partial matching, but the description never states that behavior or its exclusions.

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