Get client

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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already declaring the safety profile, the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: email, phone, custom field values and third-party references are withheld unless include_contact_details is set, which signals a privacy-gated response. It does not cover auth requirements, errors, or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core scope and key, followed by the field inventory and the conditional-contact caveat, then the endpoint. The field list is long but each item earns its place given there is no output schema.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields plus the conditional contact details. It omits error/not-found behavior and any permission prerequisites, but covers 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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates the include_contact_details gating and its specific fields, adding only marginal emphasis beyond the schema's own description; 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (one account/client) and the lookup key (UUID), and enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from search_clients. The retrieval verb is implied by 'One account ... by UUID' rather than stated explicitly, but an agent can still tell what it does.

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?

'By UUID' implies you must already have an identifier, which implicitly separates it from the search_clients sibling, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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