client_detail

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

With no annotations, the description adds the [READ] marker and clarifies the ID type, but it doesn't disclose return format, error handling, or rate limits. For a simple read tool, this is a moderate level of transparency.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured, with a one-sentence summary followed by an Args list. There is no verbose or redundant text.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers core usage but does not describe the output format or what 'normalized detail' includes. Given the lack of an output schema, this gap prevents a higher score.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains both parameters: client_id as an internal id from list_clients and target as an optional IdP target name from config. This adds necessary semantic context beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves one client's normalized detail by internal id, which distinguishes it from list_clients and other client-related tools. The [READ] prefix further clarifies the operation type.

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?

It references list_clients as the source for client_id, providing clear context on when to use this tool. It also explains the optional target parameter, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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