clients_list

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

Annotations already declare this to be a safe, idempotent read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by disclosing alphabetical grouping and the exact searchable fields (name, CUI/CNP, email).

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?

Two concise sentences, with the core operation and scope front-loaded before the filtering and ordering details. No sentence is wasted.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It could have explicitly mentioned the companyId override and pagination behavior, but those are adequately handled in the schema.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the type and search semantics but does not add syntax, defaults, or edge-case behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ("List clients") and scopes it to "the active company," which distinguishes it from clients_get and other client-related siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It implies usage through the available filters and active-company scope, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus clients_get, clients_from_registry, or clients_anaf_lookup. The guidance is adequate but leaves sibling routing to inference.

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