get_client_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication requirement (API token with permissions) which is valuable context, but doesn't describe what information is returned, whether there are rate limits, error conditions, or other behavioral traits. It adequately covers the basic operation but lacks detail about the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds important context about authentication requirements. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given that this is a read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It covers the purpose and authentication requirements, but doesn't describe what specific information is returned or the format of the response. For a tool that retrieves client information, more detail about the return data would be helpful.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get client information from Monobank API' with specific resources mentioned (client, accounts, jars). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_statement' by focusing on client metadata rather than transaction data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides some usage context by mentioning the required API token and permissions, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving client metadata but doesn't provide guidance about when not to use it or what the sibling tool 'get_statement' is for.

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