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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), but the description adds pagination limits (100 per page) and cursor chaining, plus the auth prerequisite (Cotlet API key with access to this app). That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though rate limits and ordering are unstated.

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 returned fields are listed twice in near-identical phrasing ("ID, contact, currency, paid to date and outstanding balance" then "the contact, the currency... paid to date and outstanding balance, the same numbers as the client overview"), which is redundant. The rest is front-loaded and useful, but the duplication costs a point.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does list the returned fields along with pagination and auth requirements. It is nearly complete for a read-only list tool, with only minor gaps such as result ordering and exact field naming.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by clarifying what search actually matches, how cursor chaining works ("pass next_cursor back as cursor"), and the default scope of company, adding real meaning over the raw property definitions.

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 the clients of one company") and enumerates the fields returned (ID, contact, currency, paid to date, outstanding balance). This clearly separates it from siblings like create_client, create_invoice and list_invoices.

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?

Provides real routing guidance: search matches client name or contact name/email, and client_id from each item is meant to feed create_invoice, create_quote and list_invoices. It also explains pagination behavior. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative for fetching a single client, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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