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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the payload (contact details, appointment count, balance in cents, scheduling alert, tags, notes). It omits error behavior for non-existent ids and any permission requirements, which keeps it below 5.

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?

A single tight sentence that leads with the verb and scope, then lists the return payload with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the fields returned, so an agent knows what to expect. It lacks only edge-case behavior (missing/invalid id) and auth notes, which are minor for a simple read.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on a single required parameter, the schema already documents 'client_id' including the urn:blvd:Client:<uuid> format. The description's 'by id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the 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 ('Fetch') and resource ('one client') with singular scope plus the identifying key ('by id'), which implicitly separates it from the plural boulevard_list_clients. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 only implied: the tool is clearly meant for retrieving a single known client id, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over boulevard_list_clients or boulevard_get_appointment, and no preconditions or exclusions.

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