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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuinely useful context: the default is active clients, results are paginated via cursor, and it requires a Cotlet API key with access to the app. It also clarifies domain semantics (compliance measured against assigned exercises, due date = furthest programmed workout) that the annotations cannot convey.

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 what the tool returns and stays largely to task-relevant facts. The 'TrueCoach:' prefix is redundant with the title, and the 'as TrueCoach shows it' phrasing is slightly filler, but overall it is dense and without major digressions.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: one item per client, the fields included, default filtering, and pagination behavior. Auth requirements are also stated, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 each parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the archived default and cursor paging but adds no syntax or format detail for group, client_type, or limit beyond what the schema states.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (your clients) and enumerates the key fields returned (client type, groups, compliance rates, due date), which clearly separates it from mutation siblings like truecoach_create_client. It doesn't explicitly name a read sibling such as truecoach_get_client, but the list vs single distinction is implied by 'Returns one item per 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?

The description implies default behavior ('active clients by default') and points to the cursor for paging, which guides usage. However, it never states when to use this versus truecoach_get_client for a single client or when to set archived=true, leaving the agent to infer filter conditions.

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