get_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two important traits: the authentication method required (legacy login, no verified Open API path) and the historical/known scope of the data. It omits pagination, rate limits, and how fresh last_seen_ms is, which are secondary for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scope clarification, followed by the auth caveat. The field enumeration is long but informative rather than redundant, and 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?

The tool is low-complexity (one optional param) and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required. The auth requirement and scope caveat are the key operational facts and are present; only the site_id default semantics are left uncovered.

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 0% for the single site_id parameter, and the description never mentions it or explains default behavior when omitted. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the bare schema name, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (Insight/known clients on a site), with the return fields enumerated. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a plain 'currently-associated clients' listing, giving the agent a clear mental model of the scope.

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 clarifies when this view applies (historical + known clients, not just currently-associated), which is a meaningful selection cue. It also states the auth prerequisite. It doesn't name a sibling as the alternative for live-only listings, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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