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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the response payload ('matching clients with their id (`_id`) and name (`title`)') and the underlying endpoint, which matters since there is no output schema. It does not mention the no-paging/truncation behavior — that lives only in the schema.

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 short sentences with zero waste: purpose and return shape first, downstream id usage second, endpoint last. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 low-complexity two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, payload fields and follow-on tool routing adequately. The only gap is matching semantics for `keywords` (exact vs. partial), which an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.

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 both `keywords` and `limit` are already documented, including the no-paging caveat for `limit`. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema — it doesn't say whether keywords are AND/OR, substring or prefix matched, or whether case matters. 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 ('Find the practice's clients by keywords') and immediately describes the return shape (`_id`, `title`). Against siblings like senta_create_client, senta_update_client and senta_get_client, an agent can tell this is the keyword-discovery entry point without opening any 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 routes the agent forward: 'Use the id with senta_get_client, senta_list_jobs or senta_add_note' — a clear follow-on contract naming three siblings. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over senta_list_client_view (browse vs. keyword lookup), so it's clear context but not a full when/when-not discrimination.

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