get_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (contact info, recent jobs), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or authentication requirements. The verb 'Get' implies non-mutation, but further context would be beneficial.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, followed by the inclusion scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 get operation with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells what is returned (contact info and recent jobs), which is valuable given the absence of an output schema. It could mention specifics about error cases, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides complete coverage for the `id` parameter, including an example. The description's 'by id' adds no information beyond the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 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 states the tool's verb (Get), resource (Jobber client), and scope (by id, including contact info and recent jobs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_clients (which lists) and get_job (which retrieves a different resource).

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 usage is implied: use when you need a specific client by id with contact info and recent jobs. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like list_clients for listing all clients. The guidance is clear but not explicit enough for a 4.

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