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 genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the page size cap of 100, and the fact that the returned shape changes materially with include_profile (light fields vs. address, insurance, tags, custom fields, linked clients) – important for an agent deciding what it will receive.

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 tightly-packed sentences plus the endpoint reference; the most decision-relevant facts (search capability, output variance via include_profile, page cap) are front-loaded and nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing both return shapes and the 100-per-page limit. It stops short of covering edge cases such as the deleted_only 10-day window or how custom_fields keys are formed, though those are fully documented in the schema.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description still adds value: it clarifies that 'search' spans name/email/client number and spells out the concrete fields that include_profile toggles on, which the schema only summarizes as 'full client profile'.

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 ('Search the practice's clients (patients)') and enumerates the exact filter dimensions available (name/email/client number, date ranges, external id, custom field). This is clearly distinct from siblings like intakeq_get_client_diagnoses or intakeq_save_client without needing to name them.

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 implied by the enumeration of filter criteria, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as intakeq_get_client_diagnoses for richer client data. The include_profile note hints at choosing between lightweight and full results, which is a partial substitute for guidance.

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