Get client

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

The annotations already declare this as a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it only hints at the data relationships that can be loaded. It does not address potential side effects, pagination, error responses, or rate limits, but these are less critical given the read-only annotation. 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 extremely concise—one sentence plus a short phrase. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides a supplementary tip for parameter usage. Every word is useful, and there is no redundant or repetitive content.

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-only tool with a well-documented schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the key parameter nuance via the 'with' values. Minor lacking aspects: it doesn't explicitly state that the response is a single client object, but this is implied by the tool name and the required client_id parameter. Overall, sufficiently complete.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds significant value by listing common 'with' values (emails, phones, addresses, etc.), which helps the agent construct valid and relevant requests. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Relations to load (comma-separated)' and gives concrete, actionable examples.

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 function: "Get client details." This is a specific verb and resource, and the tool name reinforces the single-record intent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from list_clients or other client-related tools, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's scope (e.g., fetching one vs. many clients).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it lists common values for the 'with' parameter, it does not mention when to prefer get_client over list_clients or other client tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and schema.

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