clients_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, which covers the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context about cost: compact is token-cheap with named fields (id/name/email/orgId), while full is heavy. It doesn't describe pagination behavior, but it adds real value beyond the annotations.

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?

Roughly three sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource and actions, followed by mode guidance and the sibling exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct value with no waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe return shape; it does so partially (compact fields named, full objects heavy). For a 7-param read tool it is nearly complete, with only pagination and clientId usage left to the schema.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It covers mode defaults and the compact field set, plus steering from list to get for single records, but leaves page, pageSize, clientId, and the orgId filter (only in schema) largely unexplained in the description.

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 verb (Read) and resource (Convocore client accounts), clarifies the entity as end-user workspaces under an agency/org, and enumerates the three actions (list, get, check_email). It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from its nearest siblings: 'Not for organizations (use orgs_read) or CRM leads (use leads_read).'

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: default mode=compact for list, mode=full only when complete objects are needed, and prefer action=get for a single client. It also states when NOT to use it (orgs, leads) and points to the alternatives.

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