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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint; the description adds the important behavioral constraint that a staff user token is required, which annotations do not cover. It still omits pagination behavior and default status filtering (include_inactive) beyond what the schema says.

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?

One dense sentence plus an endpoint reference; every clause earns its place and the two selection modes are front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, modes, auth, and result fields. It stops short of describing pagination semantics or default inactive filtering, leaving minor gaps.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds the max-20-ids constraint and clarifies that search covers name/email while ids are exclusive, reinforcing the two parameter paths. It does not explain limit/offset or date format beyond the schema.

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 specific verbs (search/fetch) and resources (client records), enumerates the two selection modes (text vs ids), and lists returned fields, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like mindbody_get_client_account_balances or mindbody_list_client_visits.

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 presents the two usage modes (name/email text or client ids) with the 20-id cap, which tells the agent when each path applies. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings, but the two-mode framing is clear context.

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