get_client

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves detailed information. It lacks behavioral details such as required permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid client_id), response format, or whether it's a read-only operation, which is critical for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 highly concise and well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, using minimal sentences that each serve a purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed client information' includes, error cases, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for a tool that interacts with client data in a financial context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds basic semantics by explaining 'client_id' as 'ID of the client to retrieve'. This compensates partially, though it doesn't specify format (e.g., numeric, string) or constraints, keeping it at a baseline level of adequacy.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific client'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_clients' or 'update_client', which would require explicit scope clarification for a perfect score.

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_clients' for multiple clients or 'update_client' for modifications. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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