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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/clients), which is mildly useful, but says nothing about paging through results, result ordering, or what a client record looks like — and no output schema exists to cover that.

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 purpose and the usage hint, then the endpoint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

Annotations and schema together cover safety and inputs, but with no output schema the description never explains the response shape or how to page using the cursor. For an entry-point list tool with seven parameters, that is a noticeable gap but not a blocking one.

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 all seven parameters (query, cursor, group_ids, page_size, status_ids, created_since, updated_since) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline case for complete schema coverage.

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: 'List the MSP's clients (customers)'. It is clearly a list operation and distinct from gorelo_get_client, though the difference is only implied by the phrase 'find a client id' rather than stated outright.

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?

'Good first call to find a client id' gives real context on when to reach for this tool before the id-based tools like gorelo_get_client or gorelo_list_invoices. It does not name an alternative or an exclusion, so it falls just short of a 5.

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