clio_get_grant

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

The description mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke under JWT, tenant, and company scope, providing some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. The routing info adds value but is not comprehensive.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the tool name. No unnecessary words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices clarity, but it earns high marks for efficiency.

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 simple get tool, the description fails to explain how to identify the grant (e.g., by ID) or what the output contains. While an output schema exists, the agent still needs guidance on constructing the arguments JSON. The description is incomplete for proper invocation.

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?

The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds a basic explanation beyond the schema (which has no description). However, it does not specify what keys or values are expected, so the coverage improvement is minimal.

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 'Clio connector operation get_grant' which indicates a retrieval action on a grant entity, but it does not define what a grant is in the Clio context. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly via the verb 'get', but lacks explicit differentiation from clio_list_grants.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving a single grant (by ID) while clio_list_grants is for listing all grants. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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