get_client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the weak qualifier 'existing', and says nothing about behavior when the id does not resolve or what the response contains. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but thin.

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 seven-word sentence with no filler and the essential information front-loaded. Concise, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally sized.

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 whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It omits not-found behavior and any indication of the returned client shape, which are not covered by an output schema.

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 0% and the description never mentions the 'id' parameter, so it contributes no meaning beyond the schema's UUID pattern. With a single undocumented parameter and the description silent on it, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Read) and resource (Morning client), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling write tools like prepare_morning_action or save_document_draft. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from search_clients, the most confusable sibling, or note that it retrieves a single client by identifier.

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 mention of alternatives such as search_clients or read_morning. The agent must infer from the name and sibling list that this is the single-entity lookup.

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