list_changed_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns client IDs (not full objects) and the effect of omitting `as_of`. However, it lacks details on potential rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior on invalid inputs. Adequate 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?

Concise and well-structured: starts with a one-line summary, then expands on usage and parameters in a docstring format. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all four parameters and the core use case. Could mention pagination or error handling, but overall complete for a list tool with sibling references.

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 0%, so the description compensates well. It explains the purpose of each parameter: `as_of` as an ISO 8601 timestamp (optional for full list), `office_id` to restrict to an office, and `include_deleted` for soft-deleted clients. The description adds meaning beyond the schema types and defaults.

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 it lists client IDs changed since a timestamp, using specific verb 'list' and resource 'client IDs that changed'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like `get_client` and `get_clients_bulk` by indicating the output is IDs only, and suggests using those tools for full details.

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?

Explicitly identifies it as 'The workhorse for syncing' and instructs to pass an `as_of` timestamp for incremental changes or omit for full list. It also directs to use `get_client` or `get_clients_bulk` on each ID afterward, providing clear usage context. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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