get_client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds useful context by specifying that both client and default contact details are returned, but doesn't disclose edge cases like not-found behavior. This matches the get_calls calibration baseline.

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 redundancy. Every word contributes value.

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-ID tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the resource scope and parameter semantics, and nothing else is needed.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for client_mid, but the description compensates by calling it the MakeLeaps ID (MakeLeaps IDを指定して). This gives the parameter its necessary meaning, and with only one parameter, this is sufficient.

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 verb (取得する), the resource (取引先とデフォルト連絡先), and the exact scope (MakeLeaps IDを指定して). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_clients (which searches) and create_organization_client (which creates).

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 MakeLeaps ID, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but sibling names like search_clients make the distinction obvious.

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