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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world/no-destructive, so the description correctly focuses on added context: it returns EVERY match (no pagination caveat), explains what client notes actually are in Mangomint, and discloses the Cotlet API key requirement. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but sentences one and two are largely redundant ('returns contact details, tags and client notes' is stated twice). The client-notes clarification and API key note, by contrast, earn their place.

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 one-param search tool with no output schema, the description explains what comes back, clarifies the non-obvious 'client notes' concept, and notes the chaining and auth requirements. Nothing essential is missing, though documenting match/pagination behavior would complete it.

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% — the schema already documents the single query param as 'Name, email or phone number.' The description restates the same accepted input types without adding syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) and enumerates the return payload (contact details, tags, client notes). It implies its role as the entry point by telling the agent to pass client_id to other client tools, though it never names a specific sibling (e.g. get_client_timeline) to contrast against.

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?

'Pass client_id to the other client tools' gives useful chaining context, and the query semantics imply usage when the client id is unknown. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no alternative named among the mangomint client tools.

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