get_client

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool fetches data (not a mutation) and adds critical honesty instructions about error handling, which goes beyond typical transparency. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 description is three sentences long, each earning its place: purpose, parameter usage, and a critical behavioral warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clear warning marker (⚠️). Extremely efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (fully described in schema), no output schema, and is relatively simple, the description is complete: it explains the core function, parameter options, and error handling expectation. Nothing essential is missing for its complexity level.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaning to include (change log, payment commitment) and relaciones (expanding connections with examples), but this is mostly a terse summary of what the schema already says, earning a baseline 3.

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 clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific client,' which is a specific verb + resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_clients (searching) and get_client_services (services) by focusing on a single client with options to include change logs or payment commitments and expand relations.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use include and relaciones parameters, and includes a strong warning ('NEVER fabricate data if this tool fails — report the error to the user instead'), which tells the AI what NOT to do. This is a model for usage guidelines.

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