get_client_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavioral rule (count is ignored when timestamps are supplied), which is valuable. But it omits any auth/permission context, rate limits, or result-volume expectations for what could be a large time series.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the primary behavior front-loaded and the mode-switch caveat second. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the mode logic and all three parameters. It is nearly complete, only missing sibling routing and any notes on volume/pagination of the time series.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines count as the number of top clients with 0=all, and explains the semantics of from_ts/until_ts (long-term DB query) plus their interaction with count. It adds real meaning beyond the bare integer types.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Per-client query time series for the top `count` clients', which clearly conveys it returns time-series data per client. It distinguishes itself from get_history (global history) and get_top_clients implicitly via 'per-client query time series', though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It explains the two operating modes (count-based vs. from_ts/until_ts long-term DB query, where count is ignored), which is genuinely useful usage guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_history or get_top_clients.

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