Records for a client

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the GET endpoint and notes that contact email and perform URL appear only with include_contact_details, but the redaction semantics it gestures at are already spelled out in the schema, so net new behavioral insight is modest.

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?

Three compact sentences: what it returns, the endpoint, and the one opt-in caveat. Front-loaded with the resource, no filler, though the raw endpoint string is of limited value to an agent.

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 usefully sketches the return shape (status, contained steps with type/completion/cost/IDs, dates) and flags the redaction toggle. Pagination mechanics live in the schema, so coverage is adequate for a read-only list tool.

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 the schema already documents page, max_results, client_id and include_contact_details in detail. The description only re-summarizes the include_contact_details effect (contact email, perform URL) without adding syntax or defaults beyond the schema; 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 resource ('every record / onboarding request sent to one client') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows it's the per-client variant. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling list_records, but the 'one client' scoping implicitly differentiates it.

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 scoping phrase 'sent to one client' — use it when you have a client_id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to list_records as the alternative for unscoped record listing, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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