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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the lower bar applies. The description adds only the GraphQL backing query ('GraphQL: clients') and no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result limits, or ordering; the pagination contract lives in the schema instead.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the operation before listing the variants; the trailing 'GraphQL: clients' is a compact backend mapping hint with no waste.

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?

For a read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema covers what an agent needs. Ordering of returned results and whether the GraphQL mapping affects call shape are the only unaddressed details.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the QueryString grammar. The description's inline examples ('name = "Jane Doe"', mobilePhone) restate query-syntax territory the schema already covers, so baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource ('List the business's clients') and enumerates the three search modes (email, id list, query). This clearly separates it from the singular boulevard_get_client, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Explains when each retrieval mode applies ('find them by email, id list, or a query') with concrete query examples, giving the agent clear routing context. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions (e.g. use get_client for a single known id).

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