Get client details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data shape, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions/auth needs, rate limits, or how 'recent' is bounded for jobs and invoices.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return contents followed by the prerequisite. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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 enumerates the return fields, so an agent knows what it gets back. The only gap is the vague 'recent jobs and recent invoices', which leaves the time window or count unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by explaining how to obtain the client_id via search_jobs, which is practical guidance the schema field itself does not provide.

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 ('Full profile for one client') and enumerates exactly what the profile contains: name, contact info, balance, member-since, recent jobs and invoices. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_jobs or get_unpaid_invoices.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite and workflow: find the client_id via search_jobs when you only know the name. It names the right alternative for name-based lookup, though it stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g., bulk retrieval).

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