get_client

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the response contents (active plus historical document requests), which is useful read-only context. It says nothing about authorization requirements, behavior when the clientId is unknown, or whether the document-request list is paginated or truncated.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most useful detail (what comes back) is appended rather than buried. It is minimal but not structurally rich.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return content, which is what the agent most needs. Error/not-found behavior and any caller permissions remain unstated, a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 100% and the single clientId parameter is documented as a UUID in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Names a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (detailed profile information for a specific client), and clarifies the payload includes active and historical document requests. It's clearly distinct from create/update siblings, though it never names list_clients as the alternative for enumerating clients.

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?

Usage is only implied by the required clientId parameter – an agent can infer 'use when you have one client's ID and need their full profile.' There's no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to siblings like list_clients or get_intake_request.

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