Search clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. Description adds that it wraps Clients.search, returns a page of client records including primary contact and status, and points to get_client for more details. This gives useful context about return shape and suggests a follow-up action. Slight gap: does not explicitly state pagination behavior, but 'page' parameter implies it.

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?

3 sentences with no fluff. Front-loads what it does and what it returns, then gives a pointer to get_client. Could be slightly clearer on pagination, but overall efficient. Slightly long but justified by the need to explain query fields and return contents.

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?

Fully competent for a read-only search tool. The schema has all parameter details, annotations cover safety, and description explains return contents and follow-up. The only missing element is explicit statement about pagination limits, but the page parameter and default are self-explanatory given schema coverage.

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 covers both parameters fully with descriptions. Description adds value by clarifying the query can include client ID code and lists exact fields to search, which goes beyond schema's 'Text to search for'. This helps the agent form effective queries.

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?

Description clearly states it searches for customers with free-text query across specific fields (email, name, company, ID code). Includes example of ID code format. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on search vs. specific get operations.

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?

Clearly states use cases (searching customers) and suggests using get_client for full details. Does not explicitly say when NOT to use this, but the guidance for alternatives is clear. No mention of when to use other search tools like search_invoices or search_services, but those are targeted at different resources.

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