getClient

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool filters the site client list in-process to emulate a per-client lookup, implying potential inefficiency. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when clientId is not found. The deprecation notice is a positive disclosure.

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?

Two sentences: first covers deprecation and alternatives, second explains the mechanism and purpose. No wasted words, but could be more structured with bullet points. Efficient for the content.

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 no output schema and moderate parameter count, the description explains the basic behavior and usage context (deprecation, alternative methods). However, it lacks details on return values, error states, or specific behavior differences from alternatives. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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% (siteId and customHeaders have descriptions, clientId does not). The description does not add meaning for clientId beyond what the schema lacks. It references client MAC but does not reinforce that clientId is required. Baseline score due to moderate coverage without additional value.

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 it fetches details for a specific Omada client, using verb 'Fetch' and resource 'specific Omada client'. It also adds that it filters the site client list in-process, which clarifies its scope. The deprecation notice does not confuse the purpose.

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?

Explicitly guides to use listClients instead of this deprecated tool, and mentions getClientDetail when a client MAC is available. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.

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