Get client

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description aligns with that. It adds valuable context about the return structure ('full record under responseClientFields', listing key fields) and points to documentation. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key information. The pointer to docs/client-fields.md is a helpful addition without repeating schema details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so by listing the major fields ('borrowers _1/_2, employment, income, contract amounts, last note') and naming the response container. It could be more detailed about the exact structure, but for a read-only lookup with 3 simple parameters, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With schema coverage only at 33%, the description must compensate for the undocumented uuid and phone parameters. It does clarify that lookup can be by uuid or phone, but it does not fully explain the relationship between 'type' and the provided field, nor does it specify which parameter is required (required: 0). This is a partial compensation, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('a single client') with explicit lookup keys ('by uuid or phone'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_clients or get_client_status. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a single client record and know either the uuid or phone. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this over list_clients.

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