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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds the agency-mode restriction and the fact that the authenticated agent's clients are listed, which is extra context. It does not contradict annotations and provides a meaningful constraint beyond the structured metadata.

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 a single sentence, front-loading the key qualifier ('Agency mode only') and ending with the action. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is optimally concise for the amount of information conveyed.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the essential points: it lists client records and handoff status, is agency-only, and scoped to the authenticated agent. It does not outline pagination or output format, but given the low complexity and no output schema, this is acceptable. A bit more detail on what 'handoff status' contains could be useful, but not necessary.

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 parameter 'include_handoffs' is fully described in the schema with 'Include claim links status without raw tokens.' The description mentions 'app handoff status' which loosely maps to this parameter but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb (list), a specific resource (client records), and an additional scope (app handoff status). It also includes a distinguishing qualifier ('Agency mode only') that separates it from sibling list tools like list_apps and list_agents. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 a clear usage context: 'Agency mode only.' This implies it should be used when operating in agency mode and needing client records. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, though the agency qualifier effectively provides a condition. It is clear enough for most cases.

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