getClient

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool 'filters the site client list in-process to emulate a per-client lookup,' disclosing an implementation detail. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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: three sentences, no wasted words. It front-loades the deprecation warning and alternatives, then states the core function. Every sentence 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what 'details' are returned, but it only says 'Fetch details' without specifics. It also omits information about the required clientId parameter's format. Given the complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it hints that clientId might be a MAC address by referencing getClientDetail, but does not clarify it explicitly. Baseline 3 applies due to moderate coverage.

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: 'Fetch details for a specific Omada client.' It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly recommending listClients and getClientDetail as alternatives, making the specific use case unambiguous.

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 strong usage guidance by labeling the tool as '[DEPRECATED]' and directing users to 'Use listClients instead' and 'getClientDetail is also available' when a client MAC is available. This explicitly tells when not to use this tool.

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