Get client

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the specific data exposed, including a private note and blocked/Booksy-app status. It does not mention error behavior for an unknown ID or any rate/permission constraints, keeping it short of a 5.

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 first sentence is a front-loaded summary and the second supplies the field inventory, which is a sound structure. There is mild redundancy — 'contact details' in the lead is then re-expanded as name, email, phone, birthday — but the length is justified by having to describe return contents with no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so thoroughly, down to the cross-tool mapping that a visit's appointment_uid equals get_appointment's appointment_id. That mapping is exactly the non-obvious connective detail an agent needs to chain these calls.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented there, including the client_id source and the visits_limit default and 0-100 bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Reads one client card of the business by ID') and enumerates the returned fields, making it clear this is a single-record fetch rather than a list. The distinction from list_clients and find_client is implied by 'one client card ... by ID' rather than named explicitly.

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: the reader infers this is the drill-down after list_clients or find_client (that hint lives in the schema's client_id description, not the tool description). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named-alternative routing to find_client for lookup by name or phone.

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