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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: nothing is sent to the client, the card is editable/removable so confirmation is skipped, only the first name is required, and a Cotlet API key with app access is needed. This complements the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations with reversibility and auth details.

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 description is repetitive, stating 'Nothing is sent to the client' twice and restating the create action as both 'New client card' and 'Creates a client card.' It is poorly front-loaded and wastes sentences on redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral facts: reversibility, no client notification, the required field, and the auth requirement. It is largely complete, though it lacks return value detail.

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% with 6 documented parameters, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only adds that 'Only the first name is required,' which the schema's required array already states, making this baseline 3.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Creates a client card') so the agent can tell it is a create operation. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like thryv_get_client or thryv_list_clients, and the opening 'New client card' is redundant with the later 'Creates a client card'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as looking up an existing client first. It mentions that 'the call skips confirmation,' which is a behavioral note rather than a when-to-use rule or exclusion.

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