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

Annotations already declare readOnly/no-destructive, so the description adds real value beyond them: the returned fields (ID, name, service address, type), the 100-result ceiling, and the requirement for a Cotlet API key with app access. It omits pagination/ordering behavior, keeping 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?

Front-loads the core action and keeps each sentence earning its place (returns, downstream routing, cap, auth). It is slightly compressed but has no filler or repetition.

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 appropriately describes the return fields and the result cap, and covers auth needs. For a search tool whose safety profile is fully carried by annotations, it is essentially complete, missing only pagination/ordering nuance.

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 the schema already documents query, type, and limit with enum and range. The description restates the searchable fields but adds no syntax, matching, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 (Find) and resources (clients and leads) plus the searchable attributes (name, address, email, phone). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_client by noting that this tool yields a client_id to pass onward, so an agent can route between search and by-ID retrieval.

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?

Clearly establishes the entry-point use case (find by attributes, then pass client_id to get_client/create_job/create_estimate). It gives strong positive context but never states when NOT to use it or contrasts with an alternative lookup path, so it stops short of an explicit when/when-not rule.

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