list_clients

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description adds real behavioral detail: results are normalized, 'truncated' is measured rather than guessed, and missing IdP fields are null with a specific interpretation ('a null pkceMethod means no PKCE method is pinned'). It does not discuss auth requirements or paging mechanics beyond max_results.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] marker and the core purpose, then Args and Returns in tight sections. The Returns block is somewhat verbose for a two-parameter read, but it earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 correctly supplies the return envelope (clients, returned, limit, truncated) and the null-field convention. Combined with the read-only annotation, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden and it largely does: max_results is a page bound with default 200, and target is defined as an IdP target name from config that may be omitted for the default. Both parameters are explained, though max_results adds little beyond the field name and default already in 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 a specific verb and resource: listing OAuth/OIDC clients in the realm, plus what the listing is normalized to (redirect URIs, public/confidential, grant flags, PKCE method). That is well beyond a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling client_detail or client_misconfig_audit, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: '[READ]' and the field summary make it obvious this is the enumeration entry point, and 'omit for the default' tells the agent when target is unneeded. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance pointing at client_detail or client_misconfig_audit.

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