get_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly indicates a read operation, but does not disclose error handling (e.g., behavior for missing ID), permissions, or side effects. For a simple get, this is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and direct, meeting the conciseness standard.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's simple nature (single parameter, idempotent read), the description is sufficiently complete. It does not need to explain return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that client_id is a GUID, adding context beyond the schema's label 'Client Id'. However, could specify expected format (e.g., UUID length).

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'client', and the identifier 'ID (GUID)'. It uniquely identifies the tool's function among siblings like list_clients and other get_* tools.

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 when a client ID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_client_labels or get_client_suggestions. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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