getGridClientHistory

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes return fields but omits permissions, rate limits, side effects, or data freshness. For a read operation, more context on authorization and data stability is needed.

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 sentences with no fluff: first states purpose and pagination, second lists return fields. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Description covers purpose, fields returned, and pagination (implied), but could explicitly explain pagination behavior (e.g., total results, navigation). Still, it is sufficiently complete for basic usage.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

Description uses a clear verb-resource structure ('Get per-client connection history') and specifies pagination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'getClient' (current info) and 'listClientsPastConnections' (likely similar but description adds detail on fields returned).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'listClientsPastConnections' or 'getClientDetail'. The description lacks context for appropriate selection among similar history/activity tools.

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