client_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool 'ask[s] each provider live', revealing that it makes network calls and can report 'connected', 'needs_login', and 'unreachable'. It also states a strong privacy guarantee: 'Never includes a credential value.' This goes beyond a typical read operation and gives the agent necessary 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 organized into a clear one-line summary, a return-field breakdown, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though the second and third paragraphs are dense. It could be tightened slightly, but it remains well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must fully explain return values. It does: it lists the client's name and domain, 'stored', 'api_key', 'mcp_session', and the three live statuses. It also covers the meaning of the two stores and the safety behavior. The description is complete enough for an agent to know exactly what to expect and how to interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add explicit parameter explanations beyond the schema, but it does provide context that clarifies the effect of the 'check' parameter (stored vs. live status) and the meaning of 'client' (one registered name). That context is helpful but not essential given the schema already describes both parameters well.

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 opens with a precise summary: 'What is known about one client.' It identifies the exact resource (one client) and the specific verb (status/returns what is known). It also explicitly differentiates from sibling list_clients: 'Use this for one client and list_clients for all of them.' This makes the tool's scope unambiguous relative to its siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for one client and list_clients for all of them.' It also explains the non-interchangeability of the two credential stores, which is critical for interpreting results and deciding whether to call this tool versus provider-specific tools. This is clear, direct, and includes an alternative.

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