cork_get_clients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cap of 10 most recent scores, the newest-first ordering, and the inclusion of hidden/archived clients only when show_hidden is true (via parameter). It implies a read-only operation by saying 'List' but does not explicitly state that no mutations occur. This is adequate, though it could be more explicit about side-effect absence.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core function and key outputs first, then gives the alternative and prerequisite context, and finally the distributor-specific usage. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately conveys the response contents (warranty_status, tenants, scores) and the importance of client UUIDs for downstream tools. It does not describe pagination structure or error behavior, but for a list tool with clear parameter docs, the missing details are minor. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra value: it mentions the distributor usage for partner_uuid, but that is already in the schema. It does not elaborate on page/page_size semantics beyond what the schema provides. This sits at the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('clients') and enumerates the exact fields returned (warranty_status, integration tenants, 10 most recent Cork Cyber Scores). It also names the sibling cork_get_client_score_history as the alternative for older/date-bounded scores, distinguishing itself without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly states when to use an alternative ('For older scores or a bounded date range, use cork_get_client_score_history') and when this tool is a prerequisite (Client UUIDs required by five other tools). It also conditions the partner_uuid parameter on the API user being a distributor, giving clear contextual guidance.

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