Client profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine extra disclosure that annotations do not carry: it returns configuration/account identifiers and 'Never a secret value', which tells the agent this tool is safe to surface in output.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then the payload, with no filler. The parenthetical platform list and the security note both earn their place, though the sentence is long enough that it reads as a dense enumeration rather than crisp guidance.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so concretely (label, sandbox flag, account ids, write policy). Safety is covered by annotations, so the only remaining gaps are minor: no error/absence behavior and no note on what an empty or unknown client_id yields.

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% and the single client_id parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Client id from clients_list; empty uses the only client'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource precisely ('One client's profile') and enumerates its contents: label, sandbox flag, per-platform account ids, and per-platform write policy. The singular 'one client' implicitly contrasts with the plural clients_list sibling, so an agent can distinguish them, though the contrast is not stated outright.

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 lists what the profile contains but never states when to call it, when not to, or how it relates to siblings like clients_list or client_check. The only usage pointer ('Client id from clients_list; empty uses the only client') lives in the schema, not the description.

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