Get client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the exact fields returned and noting that settings are optional, which helps the agent anticipate the response shape. It does not describe error handling (e.g., what happens if ID not found) or rate limits, but these are minor gaps given the annotation coverage.

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, information-dense sentence that leads with the primary action and then lists the returned fields compactly. There is no fluff, but the field list is somewhat long and could be trimmed without loss. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

For a simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It specifies the input (client_id) and the output scope (fields, including optional settings). It does not mention the return format (e.g., a single object) or behavior when the client is not found, which could be helpful. However, given the tool's simplicity and the read-only annotations, these omissions are acceptable.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description rephrases the 'include_settings' parameter as 'optionally, effective settings (currency, language, autodebit, ...)', which is nearly identical to the schema text and adds minimal new meaning. It adds no detail about the client_id parameter beyond what the schema states (numeric client ID, the `id` field).

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a precise resource ('one customer by numeric client ID'), and lists the fields returned (identity, contact details, status, client group, optional settings). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_clients (which searches rather than retrieves by ID) and get_client_contacts (which focuses on a sub-resource).

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you have a numeric client ID and need the full client record, optionally with effective settings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., use search_clients when you don't have an ID). The sibling list includes many related tools, but the description provides no explicit routing guidance.

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