get_clients_summary

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states the tool is read-only (no mutation) and includes a strong honesty directive to avoid hallucination. This adds trustworthy behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise with two well-structured sentences. The warning is front-loaded with an emoji for attention, making it efficient and scannable.

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 is parameterless and has no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the behavior (read-only), the expected output (summary counts), and provides a fail-safe instruction. The only minor gap is not specifying the time period or criteria for 'active'.

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% with 0 parameters, so no explanation is needed. The description adds meaning by specifying the output content (total and active client counts), which is helpful.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a quick summary of total and active client counts', making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'search_clients' or 'get_client', but the mention of 'summary' implies a broader, aggregative function.

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 a usage note about not fabricating data on failure, but does not explain when to use this tool over siblings. The summary nature is implied, but explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is missing.

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