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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the return shape (contact details, client type), the multi-match ambiguity behavior, and the authentication requirement (Cotlet API key with access to this app). These are operational facts the agent could not derive from the schema.

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 first two sentences say essentially the same thing ('Search clients by name, email or phone' vs 'Searches client profiles by name, email or phone'), which is wasted space. The remaining sentences (handoff, disambiguation, auth) are dense and front-loaded, but the duplication keeps this from a higher score.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields, and it covers auth plus downstream workflow. It stops short of noting result limits, pagination or what happens on zero matches, which would fully round out a search tool.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'query' as name/email/phone. The description restates the same three input types without adding syntax or format detail, so it earns only the baseline.

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 (search client profiles) plus the searchable fields (name, email, phone) and what is returned (contact details, client type). This clearly separates it from sibling meevo_get_client, which fetches a single client by id.

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?

Explicitly hands off the result to other tools ('Use client_id with get_client, book_appointment and sell_package') and gives conditional guidance for ambiguous matches ('ask which one before it books'). That is exactly the when-to-use/when-not-to-act routing an agent needs.

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