Search Clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists searchable fields but omits critical details such as whether matching is exact or partial, the return format, pagination, or behavior with no results. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 with no redundant phrases. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and search parameters.

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?

Despite the simple schema, the description lacks essential context such as return format, result limits, or guidance on how to handle multiple matches. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is not enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool and interpret results.

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 input schema only defines 'query' as a string with no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by specifying that the query can be a name prefix, customer number, GUID, or policy number, adding valuable meaning to the parameter.

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 states the tool searches AMS360 clients, with specific search criteria (name prefix, customer number, GUID, or policy number). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_client, which retrieves a specific client, and get_policies, which handles policies.

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 finding clients by various identifiers but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Since sibling tools like get_client exist, some usage context is provided, but no direct guidance is given.

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