list_clients

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 optional search functionality but doesn't address pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'client' in this context. The description is minimal and leaves important behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and adds one additional detail. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be argued it's too brief given the lack of annotations and low schema coverage.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and relatively simple parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a list operation with pagination and search capabilities, more context about behavior and usage would be helpful. The description meets basic requirements but leaves gaps.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'optional search by name or organization' which explains the purpose of the 'search' parameter but doesn't address 'page' or 'per_page' parameters at all. It adds some value for one parameter but leaves two completely undocumented.

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 states the tool's purpose ('List clients') which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_client' or explain what differentiates listing from getting a specific client. The description is functional but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use 'list_clients' versus 'get_client' or other sibling tools. The optional search parameter is mentioned but doesn't constitute usage guidance for tool selection.

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