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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the searchable fields, which the schema already documents, and says nothing about pagination, auth requirements, or what a returned client record contains.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource scoping is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the gaps in usage and behavioral context.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description does not explain the shape of returned client records or how cursor pagination behaves across calls. The rich annotations and fully documented schema compensate substantially, leaving only a moderate gap.

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 sort, limit, cursor and search are fully described in the schema. The description's mention of search by name, email or phone echoes the search parameter without adding syntax or format details, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names the resource ('Clients of the business') and its search capability, but omits an explicit verb like list/retrieve and never distinguishes this from the sibling get_client for single-client lookup. It is understandable from the tool name but not self-evidently differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_client, nor any conditions or exclusions. The phrase 'searchable by name, email or phone' implies a filtered list but does not tell the agent when that filtering path is appropriate.

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