list_clients

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior; the description adds that it lists only the coach's own clients and the specific fields returned, which is valuable context. No contradictions, but more detail on pagination behavior or ordering would improve transparency.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second provides actionable usage guidance. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 listing tool with pagination, the description is largely complete: it specifies output fields and the key usage pattern. However, it could mention intent of pagination (e.g., 'returns a page of clients; use pageNumber and pageSize to navigate') to be fully self-contained.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the pageNumber and pageSize parameters. The parameter names and defaults are somewhat self-explanatory, but an agent would benefit from learning their exact impact (e.g., 'pageNumber controls which page of results to return').

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 lists the coach's clients with specific fields (id, name, email) and explicitly distinguishes its output for use in other tools via the _id field. This provides a specific verb-resource pair and contextualizes its role among sibling tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on how to use the returned _id as clientId/userId for other tools, indicating a clear use case. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for more detailed client information, which would strengthen the guidance.

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