alga_clients_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — results are paginated, returned one page at a time — but says nothing about default page size, ordering behavior, or what a caller sees when they exceed the last page.

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 with no filler, and the pagination scope is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a seven-parameter list endpoint, but nothing is wasted.

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 seven-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition omits the return shape (which client fields come back), how pagination ends, and what search actually matches. The read-only annotations cover the safety dimension, but the schema/description pairing leaves meaningful gaps for an agent planning a filtered browse.

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 carries real weight here; it does map three of the seven parameters conceptually (search→name search, client_type→type, is_inactive→inactive state). It leaves page, limit, sort, and order entirely to the schema's bare names and defaults, and it is ambiguous about whether search matches names only or other fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List clients") plus a scoping trait ("one page at a time"), which distinguishes it from the single-record sibling alga_clients_get. It does not explicitly name what separates it from sub-resource lists like alga_clients_contacts_list, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 to browse or filter by name search, type or inactive state" gives a clear when-to-use context tied to the available filter parameters. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., that fetching one client should use alga_clients_get), which keeps it below a 5.

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