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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information', but does not specify what details are included, whether authentication is required, potential error conditions, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic read operation.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral traits. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful, but it meets the minimum for a straightforward lookup 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific client'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_clients', which retrieves multiple clients rather than a single one by ID, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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 implies usage by specifying 'by ID', suggesting it's for retrieving a single client when the ID is known. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_clients' or other sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context without clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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