get_client_suggestions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait — results are filtered to unconfigured clients — which is the one thing an agent needs to know. However, it says nothing about whether results are limited, ordered, or deduplicated, and no permissions or rate-limit context is given.

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, no filler, and the discriminating constraint (not yet configured) is front-loaded before the pointer to add_client. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a discovery tool feeding a write operation, the description omits result limits/ordering and gives no hint about the undocumented count parameter, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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?

The single parameter 'count' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place it could be explained — and it is never mentioned. Whether count caps results, defaults to all, or is ignored is left entirely to inference, which the baseline of 4 for zero-param tools does not cover.

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 names a specific resource and scope: clients seen on the network that are not yet configured. That scoping distinguishes it from list_clients (already-configured clients) without needing the schema. It falls short of 5 only because it is a noun phrase rather than a stated verb+resource action.

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 phrase 'as candidates for add_client' implies the intended workflow — discover, then add — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of how it differs from get_top_clients or list_network_devices beyond the implicit unconfigured filter.

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