Find client

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior beyond them: the result set includes contact details plus note and visit counts, and the search index is eventually consistent ("a few seconds" lag), which is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs to avoid wrong conclusions from an empty result.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what it matches and what it returns. The match fields are repeated from the schema's query description, a minor redundancy, but nothing is padding.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, it covers matching semantics, returned fields, and the indexing-lag caveat with a fallback tool. Only result ordering is unaddressed, which is a small gap for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including that query takes a partial name/email/phone and that limit defaults to 10 with a max of 50. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond restating the match fields, so 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 definition states the resource (client cards), the match fields (name, email, phone) and the returned payload (contact details, note and visit counts). The second sentence explicitly separates it from get_client, which reads a single card by ID, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

It names the alternative (get_client) and the condition that selects it: a just-created card may not be indexed yet, so fetch by ID instead. It does not say when to prefer list_clients over this search, which leaves one sibling relationship implicit.

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