alga_clients_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context by indicating the tool returns "full details" in contrast to the lighter list/search views, but says nothing about what those details include or behavior on a missing/invalid ID.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the usage cue; there is no filler. It is efficient, though it could have used the second sentence to say more rather than less.

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 single-record read tool with one required parameter, no nesting, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and call timing adequately. No output schema exists, so return values need not be described, though a hint about the shape of "full details" would strengthen it.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only conveys that the single parameter is a client ID. The schema itself constrains format (pattern, max length 128) but the description adds no meaning about where to obtain the ID or what a valid value looks like beyond "ID".

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?

"Get one client by ID" names a specific verb and resource with clear single-record scope, which contrasts implicitly with the sibling list and search tools like alga_clients_list. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

"Use after a list or search to see full details" gives concrete sequencing guidance: call this when you already have an ID from a list or search result. It implies but does not spell out what to do when you lack an ID (i.e., use alga_clients_list or alga_search first).

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