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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's job is to add context — and it does, enumerating the returned content (linkages, devices, tickets, backups). It omits anything about auth scope, result size, or truncation behavior, but for a read-only aggregator this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the primary scope stated first and the default mode second. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 two-parameter, read-only overview tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how the optional client parameter changes behavior. The limit parameter's effect on output is left entirely to the schema, which is a minor 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 both parameters are already documented; the description's only added nuance is the no-client default, which the schema also states ('Leave it out for the whole company'). Baseline 3 applies since the description adds little beyond structured fields.

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 resource and scope: one client's cross-platform linkage, devices, tickets and backups. The 'One client' framing implicitly separates it from estate_overview's whole-estate scope, but it never names that sibling or any other, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'With no client named, lists the clients' gives clear conditional usage for the two modes of the tool, and the schema reinforces this. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. estate_overview for the whole company) or stating when not to use it.

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