search_client_by_policy

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

The description discloses key behaviors: returns all clients (usually 1) holding the policy, exact match only. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately covers the tool's safety (read-only search) and result characteristics. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but those are less critical for a search tool.

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 concise, with a clear opening sentence and a bulleted Args section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and constraints. Every sentence adds value, though the Args descriptions could be slightly more structured (e.g., using a list format is already good).

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, 2 required, output schema present), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, exact match behavior, typical result count, and parameter explanations. It lacks detail on the 'include' parameter's possible values, but otherwise is complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' block briefly explains agency_id and policy_number, adding context beyond schema titles (e.g., 'HawkSoft agency ID', 'Exact policy number'). However, the 'include' parameter is only described as 'Sections to include,' which is vague and adds little meaning. More detail on what values 'include' accepts would improve semantics.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Find a client by exact policy number match.' It specifies the exact match requirement and the use case (agent has policy number but not HawkSoft client number). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_client which require a client number.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful when an agent has a policy number from a carrier but not the HawkSoft client number.' It also specifies limitations ('Exact match only — no partial or fuzzy search'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools, which would elevate the score to 5.

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