list_clients

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and behavioral traits. It only mentions 'streamed metadata,' which hints at a potentially expensive scan, but does not state whether this is read-only, whether it has rate limits, or what side effects (if any) exist. The max_scan parameter's effect is also undisclosed.

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 short, which might seem concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. A single fragmentary phrase omits essential details and fails to use the available space to clarify purpose or usage.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for proper tool selection and invocation. It lacks an explanation of max_scan, does not specify what the returned counts represent, and provides no context about data freshness or operational constraints.

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?

The input schema has one optional parameter max_scan with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention max_scan at all, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of how to set it or what it controls.

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 'Repository client_id counts from streamed metadata' identifies a resource (client_id counts) and source, but lacks a verb and reads as a noun phrase rather than an action. It vaguely distinguishes from sibling list_funders by mentioning client_id, but does not clarify whether it lists clients, counts them, or both.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_funders or index_client. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints to help an agent choose this tool over siblings.

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