find_client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about what is returned ('contact info and addresses'), but it does not disclose behavioral details such as matching behavior, pagination semantics beyond schema hints, or any open-world implications. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and searchable fields, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple search operation.

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 straightforward search tool with four well-documented parameters and read-only/open-world annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral outcome ('Returns contact info and addresses'). It lacks detail on the exact return structure, but there is no output schema and the simple nature of the tool makes this a minor gap. The pagination parameters are already adequately described in 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to search_term by naming the accepted search fields, but it does not expand on cursor, page_size, or returned_so_far, which the schema already documents well. No additional parameter context is needed beyond 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 names a specific action ('Search Jobber clients') and the searchable fields ('by name, email, or phone'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_records or get_record, but it is clear enough to avoid significant ambiguity.

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 this is for looking up clients, but it does not state when to choose this over alternatives such as search_records, get_record, or catalog_search. There are no explicit exclusions or routing guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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