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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuine auth requirement ('Cotlet API key with access to this app'), which is useful, but says nothing about not-found behavior or response shape beyond the field list.

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 field list is stated twice in nearly identical form ('contact, client type, trainer, tags, goals, and main and add-on programs' then 'contact details, client type, trainer, tags, goals and the main and add-on programs'). That duplication wastes space that could carry behavioral detail.

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 usefully enumerates the returned profile fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to reason about the result. Auth requirement and a usage cue round it out; only edge-case behavior is missing.

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% and client_id is documented in the schema as 'Client ID from list_clients.' The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 (retrieves one client profile) and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. 'Returns one client profile' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_clients, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 concrete usage trigger: 'Use it before a message or a program change to see where the client stands.' That is clear context, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., list_clients) to route the agent when it wants many clients.

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