clients_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description explains WHAT data is returned but does not disclose read-only status, potential authorization/permission requirements, error behavior for a nonexistent UUID, or whether the invoice statistics computation carries any cost/latency. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, more transparency would be warranted.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action. One sentence effectively communicates the tool's purpose and return content. Alias examples like 'detailed information about a specific client' are clearly explained.

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 single-resource read endpoint with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and return content well. It names the invoice summary statistics and the recent-invoices list explicitly. However, given no annotations and no output schema, additional disclosure about error cases (nonexistent UUID) or the 10-invoice cap rationale could improve completeness, but this is reasonably adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, with both uuid and companyId documented in the schema. The description adds context about the companyId as an override via the schema ('Company UUID override (uses active company if not set)'), but the description itself does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 ('Get') plus resource ('detailed information about a specific client by UUID'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like clients_list (which lists clients) and clients_get is clearly the detail/read variant. It also specifies the scope of returned data (invoice summary stats + 10 most recent invoices), making it unambiguous.

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 usage for fetching a single client's detail with invoice statistics, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over clients_list or provide alternative guidance. The distinction is implied by 'specific client' vs the list sibling, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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