oauth_get_client_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether sensitive fields like client_secret are returned, what permissions or scopes are needed, or whether the call has side effects. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves a meaningful gap, though the presence of an output schema offsets part of the cost.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing behavioral detail.

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?

The tool is simple (one required, fully documented parameter) and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Still, as an unannotated read tool that may expose credentials, it should state whether secrets are included and what access is required.

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% and client_id is already documented in the schema as 'Client ID to query'. The description adds no format hints, ID source, or constraints beyond what the schema states, so the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and a clear resource ('a specific OAuth client'), which distinguishes a single-client lookup from a list operation. However, it never names oauth_list_clients or any sibling, so differentiation relies on the word 'specific' alone.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus oauth_list_clients or the other oauth_* tools, and no stated prerequisites such as required scopes. At best the phrase 'a specific OAuth client' weakly implies 'use when you already have a client_id'.

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