getClients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search and retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but it does not state pagination, response format, whether filters are combinable, or any side effects. There is no mention of permissions, rate limits, or data scope, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, containing only 'Search and retrieve clients.' While this is concise, it is under-specified and borderlines on being a phrase rather than a complete sentence. It gets the core idea across but lacks details that would make it genuinely useful.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of client objects, fields, pagination). It also does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., whether clientIds and searchText are combined or mutually exclusive). With four optional parameters and no output schema, this description is inadequate for a fully informed invocation.

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 all four parameters (clientIds, isProspect, searchText, lastModifiedDate) already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search and retrieve clients' uses a clear verb ('search and retrieve') and a specific resource ('clients'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getClientMemberships or getClientVisits. However, it does not specify whether it returns a list, a single client, or supports both by ID and search, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that to fetch memberships, visits, or account balances one should use sibling tools, nor does it state scenarios where clientIds vs searchText would be preferred. The description is purely functional with no contextual selection advice.

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