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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: pagination size ("Pages hold up to 100 clients") and an auth prerequisite ("Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app"), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loads the resource and returned fields, then layers search, the project-ID handoff, page size, and auth. Six short sentences with little waste, though the opening fragment about returned fields is slightly abrupt and the pagination/auth notes could be ordered more logically.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and partially does so by naming returned fields and project IDs, plus it covers auth and paging. It omits cursor-based paging mechanics (how to fetch the next page) and total counts, which are the only notable gaps for a list tool.

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 limit, query and cursor are already documented in the schema, and the description mostly restates them ("Search by name or email", page size). It adds no syntax, format, or cursor-handling nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists clients") and immediately qualifies what a client is ("the people and companies you work with") plus the fields returned (name, email, phone, projects). An agent can distinguish it from dubsado_get_project and dubsado_list_projects without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: search by name or email, and the returned project IDs are meant to be passed to get_project, which effectively routes the agent onward. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or an alternative for filtering by project/status, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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