List clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: default ordering (newest first), the field set returned, a total match count, and cursor-based paging via next_cursor.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the resource named first and paging last. Minor waste in repeating the searchable fields twice ('searchable by name, email or phone' then 'search matches name, email or phone'), but overall tight.

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 return-shape burden and does so: it lists the fields returned, the total count, the default sort, and how to page. Four optional parameters are all accounted for, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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%, so every parameter is already documented with defaults and the 50-item cap. The description mostly restates the schema ('search matches name, email or phone', 'newest first by default', 'Page with next_cursor') rather than adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so 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?

Opens with a clear verb+resource statement ('Clients of the business, searchable by name, email or phone') and enumerates the returned fields. It is distinguishable from get_client via the word 'Lists' and the paging/search framing, but never explicitly contrasts itself with the single-client sibling.

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 implied by the tool's shape: an agent can infer this enumerates clients and supports a search filter. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer list_clients over get_client (e.g., 'use get_client when you already know the id') and no stated exclusions.

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