List Clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it is paginated and returns a brief view by default, which tells the agent what to expect from a call.

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?

Three short fragments, zero waste, with the core action and the pagination/default-view behavior front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only, no-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers pagination, the default response shape, and how to escalate to detail. It omits any pagination-limit or total-count detail, but that is a minor gap.

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%, so page, view, and modified_since are already documented in the schema. The description restates the view default ('brief by default') and mentions the 'full' value, adding only marginal value over structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('List clients') and signals scope via 'Paginated' and the brief-by-default behavior. It also names get_client as the detail alternative, which helps separate it from siblings, though it doesn't address search_client or find_client_by_code.

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?

Gives a clear escalation path: use view='full' or get_client for detail, implying this tool is for triage-level listing. It provides the condition for wanting more detail, but offers no explicit when-not guidance versus the other list-style siblings.

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