Search clients

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: it lists the returned fields and, importantly, discloses the privacy behavior that email/phone are only returned with include_contact_details and are otherwise redacted. It stops short of describing pagination or rate-limit behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then return shape, then the privacy caveat. Dense but free of filler; the only slightly opaque element is the indirect reference to 'the documented filters of GET /api/v1/account'.

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 enumerates the result fields and the conditional contact-detail exposure, which is exactly what an agent needs before calling. Remaining gaps (pagination behavior, result volume) are minor and partly covered by max_results in the schema.

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 all 11 parameters including defaults and filter mappings, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the filter set and the default client scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb+resource ('Search the firm's accounts') and immediately pins the default scope ('clients by default'), which cleanly separates it from the singular get_client sibling. It also enumerates the searchable dimensions, so an agent knows what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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 enumerated filter dimensions, and 'clients by default' hints that the type parameter broadens scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to siblings such as get_client for single-record lookups. The pointer to 'the documented filters of GET /api/v1/account' is a documentation reference rather than a usage rule.

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