Get clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important non-obvious behavior: automatic paging through the entire result set and combining the results. It implies a non-mutating fetch, though it could add more about response shape or error 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the key behavioral guarantee and a concrete use case. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it explains behavior, scope, and purpose. It does not describe the return envelope or field names, but the mapping use case implies the relevant output and the missing details are not essential for invoking it.

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 single parameter pageSize is fully described in the schema (type, bounds, default), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The description focuses on overall behavior rather than pageSize, which is acceptable given 100% 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 ('Fetch all') and resource ('PSA clients/customers from Keka'), and it explains what the result is used for. The resource name clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools.

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 gives a concrete use case: mapping a project's clientId from get_projects to a readable client/customer name for reporting. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct resources, so the context is clear.

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