getPastClientNum

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation (history), but does not mention if it is read-only, destructive, or has permission requirements. It also lacks details on rate limits or side effects. The time-series return is stated, but format and limitations are omitted.

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 that front-load the main purpose and include key input requirements. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy, making it highly concise.

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?

While the description covers the tool's purpose and key parameters, it lacks details on the return format of the time-series (e.g., array of objects, intervals), error conditions, or pagination. Given no output schema and many sibling tools, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior for siteId (using OMADA_SITE_ID config) and that listSites can discover IDs, and by clarifying customHeaders as rarely needed. This exceeds the baseline.

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 as a time-series. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('historical client count'), and the phrase 'time-series' distinguishes it from sibling tools that might return single counts or client details.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listClients, listClientsActivity, or listClientsPastConnections. The description only states input requirements but does not mention scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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