Matter detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does imply read-only via 'Returns' and discloses the exact payload, including that the unbilled-time summary is conditional. It omits auth/permission needs, error behavior, and any rate or paywalled-field caveats.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields and ending with the optional extra; there is essentially no filler. Slightly dense wording but well-structured.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does useful work by enumerating the returned fields, so an agent knows roughly what comes back. However, it leaves the two boolean flags and the matter_id format ambiguous, which is a real gap for a 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. The phrase 'Optionally also a summary of unbilled time' hints at include_unbilled, but include_related_contacts and the format/expectation for matter_id are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns matter detail') and enumerates the payload contents (client, custom fields, account balances, statute of limitations, relationships, related contacts), so an agent can distinguish it from clio_matter_search or clio_matter_update. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this over clio_matter_search (to find a matter) or clio_billable_matters_list. The presence of a required matter_id implies a by-ID lookup, but the description never says so or states prerequisites.

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