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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is the disclosure of what the response contains and the underlying GET /clients/{id}.json endpoint. It does not mention behavior on a missing or unauthorized id, nor any rate limiting, which is a real gap for a lookup tool.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the returned-field summary is front-loaded and the endpoint path is a compact trailing anchor. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 does the necessary work of listing the returned fields, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. It is only slightly short of complete for lacking any note on not-found behavior or whether nested proposal data is included.

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 the single parameter is fully documented there, including its provenance ('from bidsketch_list_clients') and positivity constraint. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, 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 ('Get one client') and enumerates the payload it returns (contact details, address, notes, secondary contact), which distinguishes it from the list/create/update siblings. It doesn't name an alternative explicitly, but 'one client' versus the sibling bidsketch_list_clients is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the singular fetch semantics and the required client_id, but the description never says when to use this instead of bidsketch_list_clients or bidsketch_list_client_proposals. No exclusions, prerequisites, or error conditions are stated.

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