clients_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains grouping behavior (alphabetical) and filter capabilities, adding value beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior details, default sort beyond alphabetical, what happens if the active company isn't set, or response format since there's no output schema.

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 sentences, zero waste. Every clause adds information: what the tool does (list clients), the scope (active company), the grouping (alphabetical), and the filters (type, name, CUI/CNP, email). No filler or redundancy.

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 list operation with 5 well-documented params (100% schema coverage), the description covers purpose, grouping, and filters adequately. However, there's no output schema and no mention of pagination defaults or companyId override behavior in the description (only in schema). Given the tool's moderate complexity, it's adequate but could note that companyId override and pagination exist for completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters well. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining the search fields (name, CUI/CNP, email) which maps to the 'search' param, and mentions 'companyId overrides active company' behavior is implied but not stated in the description—it's only in the schema. The description adds modest value beyond the schema.

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 it lists clients for the active company, with specific details about grouping (alphabetical) and available filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clients_get, clients_create, etc., which are singular operations. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative for listing clients, and there's no clients_list sibling that could be confused with it.

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 establishes it operates on the 'active company' (context) and explains the filtering/search capabilities. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools for other listing scenarios, but the context is clear enough for selecting this list tool over singular client operations.

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