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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description carries real load: it discloses the surprising silent-upsert behavior (a create call can update an existing record), the field-clearing hazard on updates, and the required fetch-then-resubmit workflow. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must know and are not derivable from the annotation.

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?

Front-loads the create/update distinction and the dedup caveat before the workflow tip and format notes. Sentences are dense with information and earn their place, though the run-on ClientId sentence could be split for readability.

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?

Covers the genuinely hard parts of a 37-param, zero-required, no-output-schema upsert tool: mode selection, dedup risk, and profile round-trip. It still leaves most individual field semantics undocumented, which matters given the low schema coverage, but the operationally critical context is present.

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?

With 37 parameters and only 22% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but largely does not. It adds meaning for ClientId behavior and the Unix-ms date format, but leaves the insurance, address-component, CustomFields, and status fields entirely unexplained beyond their names. 'Field names are IntakeQ's own' is a non-explanation.

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 pair (create/update) and resource (client) and immediately explains the two modes. It is easily distinguished from siblings like intakeq_list_clients, which it even references. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to pass ClientId versus when to omit it, warns that omission triggers automatic matching by first name + email/phone, and names the alternative/prep step (intakeq_list_clients with include_profile=true). This is precisely the when/when-not/alternatives guidance the rubric rewards.

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