listClientsPastConnections

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It adequately describes the tool as a read operation ('Get') and lists returned data, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any rate limits or side effects. Adequate for a read-only tool.

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?

Two concise sentences, no irrelevant information. Key features are front-loaded. 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, key features, and return fields (timestamps, traffic, duration, device details). It could be slightly more complete by noting pagination defaults from schema, but overall sufficient.

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 89%, so parameters already have descriptions. The description adds a summary of supported operations (pagination, filtering, etc.) but does not provide significant additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 clearly states 'Get client past connection list with historical connection data' and lists specific returned fields (timestamps, traffic, duration, device details). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'listClients' (likely current clients) and 'getClientDetail' (individual details) by focusing on historical connections.

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 supported features (pagination, filtering, sorting, search) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listClients' or 'getClientHistory'. Usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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