direct_list_clients

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the authentication/header expectation: it is called without a Client-Login header because it is an agency method. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent invoke it correctly in the broader tool workflow.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second explains how it fits into the workflow and how it should be called. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 the tool's simplicity, one optional parameter, the readOnlyHint annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool returns, where it fits in the workflow, and the required call context.

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%, and the description does not mention the limit parameter at all. The schema provides a name, type, and default, so the parameter is not opaque, but the description fails to add any meaning or guidance beyond that.

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 a specific action (list) and resource (agency client logins), and adds scope by mentioning currency and balance. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining that this is where client_login is obtained for other tools, and that it is an agency-level method.

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 gives clear usage context: it is the source of client_login for other tools and must be called without the Client-Login header, identifying it as an agency method. It does not name specific alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the positioning is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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