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 states it's a list operation (read-only) and explains filter semantics (e.g., isLead with true/false behavior). However, it omits details about return format, pagination beyond limit, or any potential side effects, which is a minor gap.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: one sentence stating purpose followed by a compact list of optional filters. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple list tool with three optional parameters. It covers the core purpose, filter semantics, and default limit. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it could be more complete by explicitly stating what it returns (a list of client objects) or any pagination behavior, which would help an agent set expectations.

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% with each parameter already described (limit, isLead, search). The description mostly restates the schema information, adding little new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The only slight addition is the phrase 'false=active only' for isLead, but this is essentially equivalent to the schema's 'non-leads.'

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'List Jobber clients.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_client' (single client) and 'list_invoices' (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 description provides clear context that this tool is for listing clients and even specifies the filter options and default limit. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a list operation.

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