direct_client_info

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

The READ prefix explicitly indicates a non-mutating operation, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, and it adds no context about authentication, error behavior, or performance characteristics.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the operation type and resource. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or 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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned fields. It could mention that it refers to the current authenticated client, but the tool name and context make that apparent. Overall, it is complete enough for its 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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist, and it adds no parameter-related meaning beyond that.

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 opens with 'READ:' and explicitly names the API method 'clients.get', followed by a clear list of returned data fields (login, currency, VAT, shared account flags, restrictions snapshot). This is highly specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like account_summary or account_balance.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or provide context for selection among the many sibling read tools.

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