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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it names the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with access to this app) and clarifies that search is a partial match on name/email/phone.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The client_id sentence is slightly out of place and reads as a non-sequitur, mildly weakening flow.

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?

For a paginated list tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, fields, auth, and search semantics. Pagination behavior is only hinted via the schema's cursor parameter, but nothing critical is missing.

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, cursor, and search are already documented. The description restates the search-matching rule already present in the schema, adding no new syntax, format, or default information beyond it. Baseline 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 specific verb and resource ('Lists the clients in your Joist account') and enumerates the returned fields (name, email, phone, address). It's clearly the read-side counterpart to joist_add_client, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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 line 'Use client_id from an item in create_estimate' hints at usage context, and the search behavior is described, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over joist_add_client or joist_list_items, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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