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

Far exceeds the annotation bar: it discloses there is no search endpoint, that it reads only the 500 most recent records (5 pages of 100), filters client-side, and that the `complete` flag reports whether every record was checked. This truncation caveat is exactly the kind of limitation an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and match fields, then the operational caveat, then the return shape and 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract: at most max_results matches, same fields as list_clients, plus the `complete` boolean. Combined with the 500-record scan disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret results.

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 the schema already documents query, status and max_results. The description corroborates the case-insensitive text-match behavior and the max_results cap, but adds nothing beyond the schema's own field descriptions. Baseline 3.

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) and resource (client records) with the exact match fields (name, preferred name, email). It implicitly distinguishes itself from practice_better_list_clients by noting it returns 'the same fields as practice_better_list_clients', signaling this is the filtered variant.

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 for when to use it: looking up clients by name/preferred name/email. It references the sibling list tool for field parity but does not explicitly say 'use list_clients to enumerate all clients' or give any when-not condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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