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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context: newest-first ordering, a hard page cap of 100 records, and the explicit list of omitted fields. It stops short of describing cursor semantics or empty-result behavior, so not 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and how it orders results. Every sentence carries distinct information: return fields, exclusions, page size, sibling routing, and the 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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned fields and exclusions is doing necessary work. Combined with the page-size cap, ordering guarantee, and alternative-tool routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly against 8 optional parameters.

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% and every parameter (limit, status, after_id, before_id, has_account, child_records, modified_after/before) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the 100-record page cap, which duplicates the limit maximum, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List client records') plus ordering ('newest first') and the exact field set returned, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It explicitly distinguishes itself from practice_better_find_clients, which is the nearest sibling.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: 'To look up one person by name or email use practice_better_find_clients.' It also sets scope by declaring which fields are not returned (DOB, address, insurance, notes), so the agent can rule this tool out for detail lookups.

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