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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the upstream endpoint (GET /v1/clients/{clientId}), which helps correlate with API docs, but says nothing about error behavior for missing ids or response shape.

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, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The endpoint sentence is mildly redundant with the tool name but earns its place by anchoring to the underlying API.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, almost nothing is missing. Only the absence of guidance on missing/invalid ids keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, and the schema itself documents client_id including its provenance ('from gorelo_list_clients'). The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries parameter detail.

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 ('Get one client by id with its details'), which an agent can distinguish from gorelo_list_clients without opening either schema. The sibling is not named explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 'one client by id' framing implies single-record retrieval versus the list sibling, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this over gorelo_list_clients or what to do if the id is unknown.

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