find_client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds that the search is by name, MAC, or IP, but no additional behavioral details (e.g., case sensitivity, partial matching). No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single 7-word sentence: 'Find a client by name / MAC / IP.' It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous information. Every word is necessary.

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 low complexity (1 required parameter, no enums, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly explains what the tool does and what the input parameter represents.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, but the description compensates by stating the query can be a name, MAC, or IP. This adds necessary context to the otherwise bare 'query' string parameter, helping the agent understand valid input types.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Find a client by name / MAC / IP.' It specifies the verb 'find,' the resource 'client,' and the search criteria, distinguishing it from siblings like find_device (searches devices) and find_tool (searches tools).

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 when you have a name, MAC, or IP to identify a client, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_devices or lookup_api. No exclusions or alternate tool mentions are given.

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