search_clients

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, so the description's note that omitting search returns a list adds a real behavioral detail. It explains that the tool returns a list even when search is empty, which is not obvious from the schema. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like the meaning of default limit or archived handling, though annotations lower the burden.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It states the core purpose and one key behavior efficiently, making it easy to scan and digest. Ideal conciseness.

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 an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with three optional parameters. It only covers the search omission behavior and provides no explanation of limit or archived filters. It also lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus other related tools, leaving the agent underinformed for decision-making.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It only implies the role of 'search' by saying what happens when it is omitted (a list is returned), but it does not explain 'limit' (pagination) or 'archived' (include archived clients), which are non-obvious. This is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 MakeLeaps clients' with a specific verb and resource, and notes that omitting search returns a full list. This gives a clear sense of what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_client, relying on the inherent contrast between 'search' and 'get'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_client or create_organization_client. It only describes the default behavior when search is omitted, but does not mention when to apply the archived filter or how limit works, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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