Find Client Profile

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

Annotations declare idempotent, non-destructive behavior but readOnlyHint=false, so the description's disclosure that the result may be null is valuable return-shape context that annotations cannot supply. It doesn't explain the openWorldHint=false / local SQLite boundary or why the tool isn't flagged read-only, but no contradiction is present.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the matching precedence and ending with the null-result case. No padding or restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description correctly fills that gap by stating the return is a profile or null. What remains unstated (the profile's fields, substring-match ambiguity) is minor for a lookup tool with fully documented parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds interpretation detail the schema lacks: that `query` is treated as an exact client_id in one path and a case-insensitive substring in the other. The db_path path restrictions are left to the schema, which already documents them fully.

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?

Specific verb ('look up') plus resource ('client profile') with the exact matching strategy spelled out. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like save_client_profile and list_client_reports, which are write/list operations rather than a single-profile lookup.

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 defines the selection rule between two modes: exact client_id first, falling back to case-insensitive display_name substring. That is genuine usage guidance for picking a query form, though it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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