get_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does say the result includes contacts and that lookup is by clientid or email, but it does not disclose behavior when neither or both identifiers are supplied, error handling, or return format details. For a read operation this is adequate but thin.

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 extremely short and every word earns its place; the key facts are front-loaded. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 lookup tool, the description plus schema covers purpose, key fields, and that contacts are included. However, the schema marks both parameters optional and the description does not state that at least one is required, nor what happens on no match. This is a noticeable gap for an agent deciding how to call 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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'or' relationship (clientid or email), which is mildly useful confirmation. It does not add formats, defaults, or precedence.

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 phrase 'One client with contacts' clearly identifies the operation as retrieving a single client and its contacts, and it names the lookup fields. It distinguishes from plural list tools even though it doesn't explicitly name them. The verb is implied by the tool name rather than stated in the description, so slightly short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present. 'One client' implies the tool is for single-record lookups rather than list operations, but alternatives such as list_clients are not mentioned. Usage context is only implied.

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