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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: a five-minute server-side cache, exclusion of names and emails, and per-field interpretation rules for 'remain' including the -1 sentinel. This is substantive disclosure beyond annotations, though cache staleness handling and pagination end conditions are not spelled out.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and no filler; the payload/semantics caveats follow logically. It is dense but each clause carries information, with only mild run-on density in the sessionType clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by naming the returned fields (client IDs, validity, remain/sessionType) and warning that results are partial. It stops short of describing page metadata or ordering, which an agent consuming the output would want.

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 description coverage is 0%, so 'page' and 'count' are documented nowhere except their JSON types and bounds. The phrase 'one page of' hints at pagination but gives no guidance on page sizing, defaults or the 100-item ceiling, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read one page of') plus resource ('active client passes') and scope (client IDs and validity), which cleanly separates it from siblings like fitssey_get_client_visits_report and fitssey_get_sales_report.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'active client passes' and the explicit caveat that 'This page is not a full membership total', which tells the agent to paginate rather than treat results as complete. However, it never names an alternative tool or states prerequisites for when this report is the right choice.

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