get_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It only promises 'detailed information' without disclosing error behaviors (e.g., 404 if not found), required auth scopes, or the specific fields returned. This leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and failure modes.

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?

A single 10-word sentence clearly states the action, target, and lookup key, with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easily parseable.

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?

For a one-parameter getter, the description is adequate but not complete: it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, whether the response is a full client object, or how errors like missing IDs are handled. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate but only partially does.

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?

The schema already documents id as 'The client UUID' with 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' merely restates the parameter's purpose without adding semantic richness.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('client') with filter 'by ID', making its function clear. It distinguishes from list/create/update/delete siblings through the phrase 'specific client by ID,' though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies usage when a single client's detailed data is needed, but gives no explicit guidance about when to use list_clients for overviews or other alternatives. There are no exclusions or conditions stated.

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