Get client

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail by stating the result caps ("next 10 appointments", "latest 10 notes") and that output mirrors the client's page. It stops short of noting what happens for a nonexistent client_id or whether data is truncated/paginated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the one-line summary before the detailed field breakdown. Slight redundancy between the list in sentence one and the restatement in sentence two, but the detail second sentence earns its place by adding caps and field types.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: exact field families, item limits on appointments and notes, and the "as the client's page shows it" framing. Combined with a fully documented single parameter and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the client_id property already documents the pattern and origin ("Client id from list_clients."), so the description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the field-level meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("One client: contact, notification settings, booking stats, upcoming appointments, notes") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this fetches. It implies the single-record counterpart to list_clients via "One client" but never names that sibling 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 pattern that client_id comes "from list_clients" hints at the list-then-fetch flow, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g., list_clients for browsing, get_sales_summary for aggregate numbers).

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