Get client billing details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructiveHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that the payload is invoice-printed legal name and address, which overlaps the existing output schema and adds little behavioral context such as permission needs or lookup behavior for a non-matching name.

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?

A single tight clause with zero filler, and the identifying scope (one client's billing details) is front-loaded. It is a sentence fragment with no verb, which slightly weakens readability but not substance.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations and an output schema carrying the return shape, the description covers what is needed: entity, scope and field contents. The only real gap is routing guidance versus list_clients and get_invoice.

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% — the single 'client' parameter is documented as 'Client id or exact client name'. The description adds no resolution rules or hints about ambiguous/partial names, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (one client) and narrows scope to billing details — full legal name and address as printed on invoices — which distinguishes it from the generic client-data siblings. It does not explicitly call out its relationship to list_clients or update_client, so a 5 is not warranted.

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?

Usage is only implied by the stated scope: an agent can infer it should fetch details for a single known client rather than enumerate clients. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no alternative named (list_clients, get_invoice), so this stays at the minimum-viable level.

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