get_client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the response includes balances, which is meaningful beyond the annotations, but it doesn't say what 'full details' encompasses or how a missing/unknown client_id is handled.

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. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a lookup tool with an undocumented identifier parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and read-only behavior is annotated. However, for a single-record lookup an agent still needs to know where client_id comes from and what happens on a bad id, and neither is covered.

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% for the single required client_id, so the description must compensate; 'one client' only implies the parameter is a single identifier without specifying format, integer semantics, or source (e.g., from find_clients). A minimal but nonzero contribution.

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+resource ('get_client') and scope ('Full details and balances for one client'), which implicitly contrasts with the list/search sibling find_clients. It does not explicitly name find_clients, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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: 'one client' signals this is a single-record lookup keyed by an id, versus a search. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of what to do when the id is unknown (e.g., call find_clients first), and no error-condition guidance.

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