Describe the Clio API (OpenAPI catalog)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this is a read-only discovery operation returning parameters, request-body fields, and response fields. It stops short of stating auth requirements, pagination behavior, or rate limits, which for a catalog-lookup tool is a minor rather than serious gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The two operating modes (keyword search vs. specific endpoint) are stated first, and the routing advice is front-loaded before any schema-level detail.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining what is returned (parameters, request-body fields, response fields usable in the fields parameter). For a read-only, zero-required-parameter discovery tool this is nearly complete; only auth and result-limit behavior are unaddressed.

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 all five parameters (path, limit, query, method, schema) are already documented in the schema. The description adds illustrative keyword examples ('matters', 'time entry', 'bills line items') and the path/method pairing, which is marginal value beyond the schema; 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 and resource: searches Clio API v4 endpoints by keyword, or describes a specific endpoint by method + path. This clearly separates it from the many curated sibling tools like clio_matter_get and clio_bills_list, which do not require an API catalog lookup.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use it before clio_api_request when no curated tool exists.' It names the alternative (clio_api_request) and the condition that selects this tool (no curated tool available), leaving nothing to inference.

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