getPastClientNum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Returns a time-series of client counts' without detailing structure, side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. It does not mention if the operation is read-only or any other constraints.

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 very concise: two short sentences front-loaded with the main purpose and key requirement. No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Without output schema, the description should explain return values more clearly. 'Returns a time-series of client counts' is vague; details on format, granularity, error handling, or timezone are missing. It meets minimum needs but is not complete for an agent.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description reiterates that start and end are Unix epoch seconds, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves historical client count trend as a time-series, using specific verb 'Get' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like getClient and listClients by focusing on aggregated trend data over time.

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 mentions required parameters (start, end as Unix epoch seconds) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Usage is implied by the nature of historical trend, but no guidance on preferring this over similar tools like getGridClientHistory.

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