Get Client

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 states the action ('Fetch') which implies a read operation, and 'full record' suggests complete data. However, it does not disclose potential errors, authentication needs, or what 'full' includes, beyond the basic operation.

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 concise sentence that uses no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the lookup keys, making it easy to parse.

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-by-identifier tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It conveys the essential function and the key input. It could mention using search_clients when an identifier is not known, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description clarifies that the sole parameter (clientId) accepts either a customer GUID or a customer number. This adds meaningful semantic information not present in the schema, though it could be more explicit about formatting or type expectations.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('full AMS360 customer record') and the lookup keys ('customer GUID or customer number'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_clients and get_policies by focusing on direct retrieval by identifier.

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 you have a customer GUID or number, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_clients or other alternatives. There is no exclusion or alternative mentioned, so it relies on inference from the parameter and tool name.

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