superops_clients_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns matching clients, but does not mention whether it is read-only, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a search tool, not disclosing non-destructive nature is a gap.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'search' and the resource 'clients'. No unnecessary information, every word serves a purpose.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could be slightly improved by explicitly stating it returns a list, but is generally adequate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description 'by name or email domain' matches the schema's parameter description exactly, adding no new meaning beyond what is 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches for clients by name or email domain and returns basic information. It distinguishes from sibling tools like superops_clients_get (specific client) and superops_clients_list (all clients) by focusing on search functionality.

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 implies usage when needing to find clients by name or domain, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get or list. Context from sibling tools provides clear differentiation.

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