list_clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only lists filterable fields but fails to mention pagination behavior (e.g., page_size parameter), result limits, or ordering, leaving behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence listing key filters. It is concise but could be slightly improved by including pagination info without adding length.

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 the parameter count (6) and existence of output schema, the description covers basic filtering but lacks details on pagination (page_size default) and behavior when no filters are applied. Output schema reduces need for return format explanation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 5 of 6 parameters as filterable, adding semantic meaning, but omits 'page_size' and provides no detail on filter matching (e.g., exact/partial) or combination logic.

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 name and description clearly indicate the tool lists clients, with specific filter parameters listed. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_client' or 'list_companies', which would merit a 5.

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 usage for filtering clients by fields, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., 'get_client' for a single client) or when not to use.

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