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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is low, and the description adds real context beyond them: the API-key/access requirement ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app') and the scope of notes and booking-ban fields returned. It omits pagination/volume behavior for appointment history, hence not a 5.

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-loaded and readable, but the second sentence largely repeats the field list already given in the first ('contact details, birthday, notes and appointment history' vs 'contact details, birthday, saved notes and past and upcoming appointments'). The 'GlossGenius:' prefix is also 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, the description does the work of describing return values in detail and states the auth prerequisite, which is what an agent needs for this single-parameter read. Missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens when the ID is invalid or a client has no appointments.

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 client_id parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Client ID from find_client'). The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 clear verb (get) and resource (client profile) and enumerates the returned content: contact details, birthday, notes, appointment history, online-booking ban status. This is specific enough to distinguish it from glossgenius_find_client, though it does not explicitly name that sibling as the ID source the way the schema description does.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool retrieves a full profile given an ID, so an agent can infer it follows find_client. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no note about what to call first, and no routing to alternatives such as add_client_note or get_appointment for related data.

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