list_clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' and 'see' signal a read-only operation, and the description discloses the output conceptually: mappings from friendly names to GA4, Search Console, Google Ads IDs. It does not mention side effects, but none are implied.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: action, use case, and example mapping. The description is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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 simple list operation with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and data scope well. The only gap is the undocumented `format` parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description ignores the only parameter, `format`. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining acceptable values, but it does not. The agent gets no additional semantics beyond the bare schema definition.

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-resource pair: 'List all client profiles with their configured account IDs.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_client_profile by emphasizing 'all' rather than a single client.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to see which clients are set up and what accounts they have linked,' giving clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is well stated.

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