Get Client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior when the ID does not exist, no mention of error semantics or what is returned, so it earns little credit over the annotations.

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 short sentence with the key constraint (single, by ID) front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits anything an agent could use.

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 trivial one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is barely sufficient — it tells the agent how to identify the record but not what the response contains or how a missing ID is handled. Acceptable as minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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 there is a single required 'id' parameter already documented as 'Object ID'. The phrase 'by ID' merely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies with no added meaning.

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 (get) and resource (client) and constrains scope to a single record fetched by ID, which separates it from list_clients/search_client. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools it competes with, so an agent must infer the distinction from the names alone.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite several adjacent siblings (list_clients, find_client_by_code, search_client) that an agent could plausibly choose instead. Usage is only implied by the word 'single'.

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