ask_across_clients

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

The description explicitly states the read-only nature: 'Read-only by construction' and explains the filtering mechanism. It also discloses that only clients with a session are included, providing transparent behavioral expectations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, a contrast to a sibling, and a behavioral note. However, the final sentence 'Naming one client is what unlocks writes (D5)' is cryptic and somewhat tangential, slightly reducing clarity.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema required), the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter semantics thoroughly. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke 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 'question' has a clear description with an example: 'A question in plain English about every client at once, for example which of my clients has no DMARC policy.' This fully explains the parameter's meaning and usage.

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 and resource: 'Ask one question about every client at once, using their own accounts.' It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool find_across_clients, making its role distinct.

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 explicitly contrasts with find_across_clients, explaining that this tool reaches provider accounts via MCP servers to answer questions not covered by the check catalogue. It also notes the condition 'Only clients with a session are included', giving concrete usage guidance.

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