find_across_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It explicitly states 'Read-only by design' and 'it can never mutate,' which is a key behavioral trait. It also lists specific valid values for the 'need' parameter, adding transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose any error behavior or output structure, though the output schema exists.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes the key read-only disclosure. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition. It is efficiently structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, read-only nature, and parameter values. It does not elaborate on return format or error conditions, but the output schema fills that gap. A 5 would require explicit mention of edge cases or output shape, which is not necessary here.

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 schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete values for 'need' ('email_unprotected', 'no_dmarc', 'domain_unresolved'), which the schema does not enumerate. However, these values appear to be a subset of a larger catalogue ('one of the catalogue check names'), and the description's phrasing 'one of:' could be misread as exhaustive, potentially misleading an agent about the full range of valid inputs.

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: 'Answer one question across every client at once.' It specifies the resource (every client) and the action (answer a question), and it distinguishes itself by noting it is 'the one place that spans containers,' implying uniqueness among 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?

It provides clear context: use this tool when you need to query across all clients, as opposed to per-client tools. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give exclusions, but the phrase 'the one place that spans containers' signals the intended use case. A more explicit mention of when not to use it would push to 5.

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