Find Client by Registry Code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the nature of the key (registry code or personal ID), which is already in the schema. It does not say whether the result is a single client, an error, or a null when no match exists.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy; the lookup key is stated immediately after the verb. Nothing in it is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but does not resolve the key ambiguity with sibling lookups (get_client vs search_client) or state match behavior (exact vs fuzzy, not-found result). Annotations carry the safety burden, but selection ambiguity remains.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'code' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the same fact ('business registry code or personal ID'), adding no format, exactness, or matching-rule detail beyond the structured field, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('client') and names the lookup key ('business registry code or personal ID'), which distinguishes it implicitly from get_client (by internal id) and list_clients. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling lookup tools get_client and search_client, so an agent must infer which one applies.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite living in a cluster of client-lookup tools (get_client, list_clients, search_client). The lookup key is the only implicit selector, leaving the agent to guess whether search_client or find_client_by_code is correct.

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