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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the duplicate-avoidance workflow but says nothing about required vs optional fields, auth/permission needs, error behavior on duplicate creation, or what the call returns.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded, then the workflow tip, then the backend mapping. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 7 parameters that are all optional and no output schema, the description omits important context: whether any field is effectively required to create a usable client, and what a successful call returns (e.g. the new client id). It covers the dedup workflow but not the full call contract.

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 the schema already documents all 7 fields with formats and patterns. The description only references email/phone in the context of dedup checking, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new client profile') and even names the underlying GraphQL mutation (createClient). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like boulevard_create_client_note and boulevard_update_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?

Gives an explicit precondition and a named alternative: 'Check boulevard_list_clients by email or phone first to avoid a duplicate.' That is real when-to-use routing, though it never says when to prefer boulevard_update_client instead or what happens if the check is skipped.

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