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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: client profiles are private to the business, a team member lacking client permission receives a permission error, and a Cotlet API key with app access is required.

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?

Four compact sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The return-field listing is justified because there is no output schema, though the 'GlossGenius:' prefix is redundant with the title.

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, describing the returned fields (ID, name, email, phone) is valuable, and auth/permission constraints are covered. Adequate for a one-parameter read tool; only the lack of result-count or pagination behavior holds it back from 5.

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 single query param is already documented as 'Name, email or phone.' The description echoes this ('by name, email or phone') without adding syntax, matching behavior, or partial-match rules, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (search/find) and resource (clients), with the search keys (name, email, phone) and returned fields. This distinguishes it implicitly from glossgenius_get_client and glossgenius_list_clients, but it never names or explicitly contrasts those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 says what it searches by but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives like get_client (single lookup) or list_appointments. Usage is only faintly implied by the word 'search'.

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