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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing an output exclusion ('Street addresses and tax ids are not returned') plus the underlying GET /clients call, which helps the agent reason about the response. It stops short of describing rate limits or the pagination contract.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the returned field set followed by the filter dimensions. Every clause carries information; only 'GET /clients' is endpoint trivia of marginal value to an agent.

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, enumerating the returned fields and the excluded ones (street addresses, tax ids) is exactly the extra information an agent needs. Pagination and sort defaults live in the schema, and the read-only safety profile is in the annotations, so the remaining gaps are minor.

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 90%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including defaults for top/skip and the sort enum. The description's filter list (status, client name, id, creation date) largely restates those schema-documented fields and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond them, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 ('List clients') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, billing name, email, phone, city, account manager, status, billing rate type, currency), which separates it from sibling list_* tools on contacts, invoices, etc. The purpose is unambiguous, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast with.

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 implied usage by naming the filterable dimensions ('Filter by status, exact client name, id or creation date'), so an agent can infer when this tool applies. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives like list_contacts, and no prerequisite/limit context.

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