getPastClientNum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool returns a time-series but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences long, no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and then specifies the requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and the tool's complexity (time-series data), the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not detail the format of the returned time-series (e.g., intervals, data points, units). However, parameters are well-documented in the schema, and the tool's purpose is clear. A 3 reflects adequate but not thorough completeness.

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%, and the description adds little beyond the schema: it reiterates that start and end are Unix epoch seconds (already in schema) and does not elaborate on siteId or customHeaders beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description provides minimal added value.

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 gets a historical client count trend over a time range, specifying it returns a time-series of client counts. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like getClient or listClientsPastConnections by focusing on the trend over a range.

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 and end as Unix epoch seconds) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not list exclusions or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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