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 the HTTP GET path and the expansion side-effect (extra data returned), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the id does not exist.

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, front-loaded with the identity of the resource, then the optional expansion, then the endpoint. Every sentence carries information, though the raw endpoint string is marginally redundant for an agent that already has the tool binding.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is close to adequate, but there is no output schema and the description never indicates what a client object contains or what expand actually changes in the response shape. Error behavior for a missing id is also absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does for the harder parameter, enumerating valid expand values (contacts, attributes, addresses) that the schema does not list (only a generic pattern applies). client_id is only implied by "by id" and gets no detail on valid ranges or where to obtain one.

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 ("One customer by id") plus the exact endpoint, so an agent knows this is a single-record fetch. The singular "One customer" implicitly contrasts with bsale_list_clients, but no sibling is named 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?

The description explains the optional expand mechanism (contacts, attributes, addresses), which is genuine usage guidance for the one non-obvious parameter. It gives no when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer bsale_list_clients or bsale_update_client, and no note on invalid-id behavior.

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