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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful context beyond that: notes are team-only ('visible only to your team'), results are ordered 'newest first', and it needs a Cotlet API key with app access. These are real behavioral and auth details.

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 payload list ('details, notes, allergies, and upcoming and past appointments') is repeated almost verbatim in the second sentence ('contact details, the notes your team saved, allergies, and upcoming and past appointments'), which is wasted space. The leading purpose and trailing usage/auth lines are well front-loaded and back-loaded respectively.

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-value burden and does so adequately, naming the profile fields and ordering. Combined with the notes-visibility and auth notes, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/edge behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the only parameter's schema text ('Client ID from list_clients.') already documents the source. The description adds nothing further about the client_id, so the baseline of 3 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 specific verb and resource ('Returns one client's profile') and enumerates what that profile contains (contact details, team notes, allergies, upcoming and past appointments). This clearly separates it from the sibling list_clients, though it doesn't name that alternative explicitly.

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?

'Use it before booking or writing to a client' gives a concrete when-to-use hook tied to the sibling write tools. It gives no when-not guidance or explicit alternative routing, so it stops short of a 5.

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