List clients

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that the unfiltered list can be very large, explains the client structure with up to two borrowers and field suffixes, and locates rows under 'responseClients'. This adds significant behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then performance guidance, then structural details. Every sentence earns its place, and the reference to docs keeps it from becoming bloated.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers response location, field naming conventions, and points to full field docs. Minor gaps like explaining 'reference' and 'range_type' are acceptable given the doc link and overall guidance.

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 documentation covers 86% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the advisability of a small limit but does not clarify the meaning of 'reference' or the exact semantics of 'range_type'. No substantial additional parameter meaning is provided.

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 clearly states the action: 'List clients / leads' and specifies paging and date range. It distinguishes from sibling get_client by using the plural 'list' and covering both clients and leads.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer a small limit (e.g. 25)' due to large unfiltered lists. No explicit alternatives are named, but the context clearly implies listing vs. single-client retrieval.

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