query_client_catalog

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by clarifying the data source (imported snapshot) and explicitly excluding raw SQL and live-job claims, which helps the agent set expectations. It doesn’t describe return format or filtering semantics, but the annotations lower the bar and the added constraints are valuable.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. The key safety constraint is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, 5 operations, nested filter object) and no output schema, the description covers purpose and safety but leaves gaps: how filters are combined, what each operation returns, and what columns are valid. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 0%, yet the description only says 'count/filter/group,' which maps loosely to operation, filters, and group_by but adds no detail about valid column names, filter behavior, or how limit/offset apply. The schema’s enum for operation and named parameters provide some self-documentation, but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter-level guidance.

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?

Clear and specific: the tool 'count/filter/group the imported FYI client snapshot,' exactly describing its function with a concrete resource and operations. This distinguishes it from siblings like describe_client_catalog or search_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?

The only usage-related guidance is a constraint ('structured operations only—never raw SQL or live-job claims'), which implies a safe query tool but does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like search_clients or find_client. No when-not-to-use conditions or direct comparisons.

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