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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the exact shape of the returned history and the auth requirement ('user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'). It says nothing about size limits or pagination, which keeps it from 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with usage and auth requirements following. The field list 'contact details, jobs, estimates, invoices and notes' is essentially repeated twice, which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the history it returns. The single input parameter is fully documented in the schema. Adequate for a read tool, though the return structure is described loosely ('the same history the account page shows').

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 description coverage is 100% with 'Client ID from search_clients' already explaining its origin. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 for a fully-documented schema applies.

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 (get one client) plus the exact scope of the payload: contact details, service address, recent jobs, estimates, invoices and notes. This cleanly separates it from the sibling service-autopilot_search_clients, which the description implicitly contrasts with 'one client'.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: 'Use it before replying to a client or billing one.' The schema's client_id note ('Client ID from search_clients') establishes the upstream step. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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