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

Annotations supply destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the dedup workflow — it does not say what happens if a duplicate exists (reject vs merge), whether specific scopes/auth are required, or what the call returns. The duplicate-check guidance is genuine operational context, which is worth credit, but the disclosure remains thin.

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, front-loaded with the action and then the operational caution. The trailing "GraphQL: createClient." is minor filler for an agent that only needs the tool name, but it costs little space.

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 and all 7 parameters optional, the description does not state what a successful creation returns (e.g., a new client id) nor that the inputs are all optional, leaving the agent to infer the response. It is adequate for invocation but not fully complete given the absent return 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% for all 7 fields (dob, email, pronoun, names, external_id, mobile_phone) including formats and the E.164/date patterns, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no field-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 ("Create a new client profile") and implicitly distinguishes itself from the retrieval/mutation siblings boulevard_get_client, boulevard_list_clients and boulevard_update_client. It even names the underlying GraphQL operation (createClient), making the intent 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?

Provides an explicit precondition: check boulevard_list_clients by email or phone first to avoid a duplicate. That is clear, actionable guidance tied to a named sibling. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use (e.g., use boulevard_update_client for existing clients), so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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