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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds the staff-token auth requirement and the 20-id cap, which are meaningful operational constraints. It does not discuss pagination behavior or result ordering, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering modes, limits, payload, and auth, followed by the underlying endpoint. No 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?

For a 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the two access patterns, the id cap, the auth requirement, and the returned field categories. Pagination is implicitly handled by limit/offset in the schema but not called out in prose, a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of the max-20-ids limit and name/email matching merely echoes those schema constraints, adding no new syntax or format 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 (search/fetch) plus resource (client records) and the two selection modes (name/email text or up to 20 client ids), plus what the record contains. This clearly separates it from siblings like mindbody_add_client and mindbody_update_client.

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?

Gives clear context: it is the read path for client records, and it states the prerequisite 'Requires a staff user token.' However, it never names an alternative tool or a when-not condition, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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