direct_get_client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' adds nothing new. What the description does add beyond annotations is the content boundary (no phones or representatives) and the underlying call (Clients.get), which heads off expectation mismatch on the returned fields.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; scope comes before the sibling pointer. Minor waste in 'via Clients.get' and the redundant trailing 'Read-only.' which duplicates the annotation.

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 zero-argument getter with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, what is excluded, and where to go for the agency case.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly spends no space on parameter syntax. The field names it quotes are outputs, not inputs, and the output schema is separately available.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Own Direct account info') and enumerates the return payload (Login, ClientId, currency, type), which lets an agent tell it apart from the many direct_list_*/direct_get_* siblings. The scope qualifier 'Own' and 'via Clients.get' pin down exactly which client record is returned.

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 routes the agent explicitly: agencies should use `direct_list_agency_clients` instead, and it states what this tool will not return (phones/representatives). This is the same when/when-not/alternative pattern as a top-tier definition.

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