client_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about cursor mechanics, specifically that payments_cursor alone continues payments instead of fresh page, and that the response is paginated per section. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate results.

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, no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence addresses the only non-obvious usage pattern. Every word earns its place; the structure is ideal for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Despite 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key nuance (pagination continuation) and names all returned data types. It does not explicitly state that clients must be found via find_client first, but that is implied by the client_id parameter description in the schema. For the complexity level, it is sufficiently complete; an agent can invoke it correctly without missing critical details.

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%, so all parameters are documented individually. The description adds crucial context to the payments_cursor parameter, explaining its special dual role, and implies the other cursors are for standard paging. This enriches understanding beyond what the schema's per-field notes say, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 returns a client's jobs, quotes, invoices, and payments — a specific verb and resource set that distinguishes it from siblings like jobs_summary or revenue_summary. It uses precise nouns and lists the four data sections, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides explicit pagination usage, notably the special case for payments_cursor that returns only the payments section. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternative tools (e.g., jobs_summary for aggregate data), but the focus on a client's history implies its niche. The cursor guidance is actionable and clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke this pattern.

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