podyx_get_client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so 'read/preview only' adds nothing. The trailing 'Follow all pagination; a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price' is boilerplate that does not fit a single-resource GET with no pagination parameters and could mislead an agent into expecting quote semantics; only 'currently owned' adds genuine scoping/authorization context.

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?

Three short sentences, but the last one is unrelated copy-paste that spends the description's most salient position on pricing/pagination rules this tool cannot perform. The relevant scoping information ('currently owned') is buried mid-sentence.

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 one-parameter read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is close to adequate — it says what is returned ('client and its scoped references') and that it is read-only. It is incomplete on the two things that matter: what 'scoped references' concretely expands to, and how it differs from podyx_v1_get_client.

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 single parameter is a nested 'path' object wrapping a uuid 'id', so the schema alone explains nothing. The endpoint template 'GET /api/v2/clients/{id}' implicitly tells the agent that the id identifies a client, which is modest but real added meaning; it does not explain the nested 'path' wrapper or the uuid format.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read the currently owned studio client and its scoped references') and anchors it to an endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling podyx_v1_get_client, leaving the agent to guess which client-getter to pick.

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?

'Read/preview only' gestures at the use context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The closest sibling, podyx_v1_get_client, is never mentioned, which is exactly the routing decision an agent needs help with here.

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