client_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates that. The description does add the timespan bounds (7200..2592000, default 86400), which the schema lacks, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or the shape of a returned client record. Adequate against a low annotation bar, not rich.

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 one-line purpose followed by a compact Args list; no filler sentences. The '[READ]' tag is slightly redundant with the annotation but is cheap. Structure is easy to scan for an agent.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the arguments and the general nature of the result ('clients seen on a network'). It stops short of describing return fields, ordering, or pagination behavior, but nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it gives network_id provenance (from network_list), the timespan range and default, and the meaning of target. The only weak spot is 'Target name from config', which is vague about what valid targets exist. Given a 0% coverage schema, this is strong compensation.

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+resource with scope: lists clients 'seen on a network within a look-back window'. That distinguishes it from siblings like client_get, client_usage, and client_connectivity. However, it never names an alternative tool, so the differentiation is inferred from the name rather than stated.

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 is implied by the description (retrieve clients on a given network) and it helpfully notes that network_id comes from network_list. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no routing to client_get or client_usage for per-client detail, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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