get_client_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the tool retrieves client details but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The parameter documentation is concise and directly relevant, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more integrated for optimal structure.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves detailed information. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how results are structured, or potential limitations, making it insufficient for the agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by documenting the single parameter 'client_id' and its purpose ('The ID of the client to retrieve'). This adds meaningful context beyond the basic schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints or examples, keeping it at a baseline level.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific client'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_clients' or 'get_user_details', which prevents a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_client_details' over 'list_clients' for broader client information or 'get_user_details' for user-specific data, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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