List / search clients

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already declare the safe, non-destructive nature of the operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema, such as the ability to search and filter, but does not disclose response format or pagination behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is fair.

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 two sentences long, with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action ('List or search clients') and immediately specifies scope. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 list/search tool with no output schema, the description and annotations cover the essential context: what it does, what parameters it accepts, and that it is read-only. It does not specify the return format, but the tool name and description imply a list of clients. This is adequate for a low-complexity tool, though a note on pagination would push it to 5.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including the meaning of 'search' and 'brand_id'. The description essentially repeats the schema's parameter descriptions ('by name, email, or company', 'filter by brand') without adding new semantic value. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific action ('List or search clients') and the resource being acted upon (clients). It further specifies searchable fields (name, email, company) and a filter (brand), making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like list_client_accounts or get_client.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to list or search clients with specific criteria. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the stated search and filter capabilities make the intended usage obvious. A 4 is appropriate because the context is unambiguous.

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