get_client

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adds behavioral context with '[tier: readonly-owner]', indicating read-only access and owner-level permissions, which helps agents understand safety and authorization. No further details on side effects or rate limits, but the tier information is valuable.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no redundant information, and front-loaded key purpose. Every word adds value.

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 retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and behavioral tier. It could optionally mention default fields or error handling, but it is sufficiently complete.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add further meaning beyond what is in the schema, such as clarifying the 'fields' parameter usage or format. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a single client by ID, with verb 'Get' and specific resource 'client'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_clients' (which retrieves multiple clients) and other 'get_*' tools. The mention of the GraphQL 'client' query adds clarity.

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 use for single client retrieval by ID but does not explicitly state when or when not to use it. No mention of alternatives like 'list_clients' or conditions for skipping this tool.

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