getClient

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool 'filters the site client list in-process to emulate a per-client lookup', indicating a non-optimal implementation. However, it could further note read-only nature and lack of side effects.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the most important deprecation warning. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the deprecated status and absence of output schema, the description covers key aspects: alternatives, mode of operation, and basic function. It could mention output format or additional limitations, but overall it's sufficiently complete for a simple fetch 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 67% (siteId and customHeaders have descriptions, clientId does not). The description adds no extra parameter details beyond the tool's purpose, but the required clientId is implicitly clear. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate for medium coverage without additional explanation.

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 (fetch details for a specific Omada client) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by recommending listClients and getClientDetail as alternatives. It also notes the deprecated status, which adds context.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it declares the tool deprecated and recommends 'Use listClients instead' and 'getClientDetail is also available' for MAC-based lookups, helping agents choose correctly.

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