search_clients

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it ranks candidates proposes a non-exact match and requires user confirmation, which goes beyond the structured fields and clarifies the tool's interactive nature.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action 'Rank client candidates,' and every word adds value. It is concise without sacrificing essential information.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and workflow but omits details like return format and limit behavior. It is adequate for a basic search tool but leaves some gaps for an agent relying solely on this description.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints that 'query' is a name to compare, but fails to define the 'limit' parameter or how results are returned. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand parameter behavior.

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 uses a specific verb 'rank' with resource 'client candidates', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like find_client and query_client_catalog. It further specifies a non-exact matching workflow with user confirmation, which is unique and actionable.

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 fuzzy client name matching with user confirmation, suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools or state when to prefer one over another, leaving some ambiguity.

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