list_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the response includes clients with their projects and mentions pagination support. However, it doesn't describe response structure (e.g., whether it's a raw array or paginated object) or any other side effects. The pagination detail is partially redundant with schema parameter descriptions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second adds return information and pagination.

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 lack of output schema, the description explains returns by stating clients and associated projects. It also covers pagination. However, it doesn't detail the exact response payload shape (array vs. paginated object), which an agent might need to know for invocation, but it's sufficient for a simple 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema descriptions for page and per_page are already clear, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of pagination doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. No extra parameter information is provided.

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 states the verb (List) and resource (all clients in the organization), making the purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings like get_client by focusing on listing all clients, and from list_contacts by specifying clients.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (when you need to list clients). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear and the existence of get_client implies using this for bulk listing. No exclusions are stated.

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