list_clients

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does disclose the pagination cap (up to 100 results per page) and provides a response field reference for interpreting enums. However, it does not mention whether search supports partial matches, case sensitivity, sorting defaults, or any potential side effects (though none are expected for a list call). The provided context is useful but not comprehensive.

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 compact and well-structured. The purpose is stated in one sentence, the pagination constraint in another, and the response field reference is clearly separated. Every line adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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 list tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job. It explains the pagination behavior and clarifies two often-ambiguous enum fields in the response. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that all clients are returned when no search is provided, but the schema's optional parameters imply this. Overall, it is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('Page number (1-based)' and 'Name or email search term'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as search matching behavior or interaction between parameters. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource combination: 'Search/list clients in the connected IntakeQ account.' It also states the pagination limit, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_client (which presumably fetches a single client). The purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

The description implies usage for searching or paging through clients, and the pagination limit gives a practical constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_client, nor does it discuss search behavior (partial matching, optional criteria). It provides no exclusionary guidance.

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