getGridClientHistory

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds real value by disclosing that results are paginated and what data classes come back, but says nothing about default/maximum page size behavior, empty-result semantics for unknown MACs, or retention window for history.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its pagination trait, followed by the return payload. No filler, hedging, or repetition of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the near-identical sibling listClientsPastConnections and any note about how far back history extends.

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 description coverage is 100%, with page, pageSize, siteId, clientMac and searchKey all documented in-schema, including defaults, ranges, and the listSites hint for siteId. The description only reinforces 'paginated' and 'specific client', adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get per-client connection history") and enumerates the returned fields (timestamps, SSID/network, traffic, authentication type), which clearly distinguishes it from generic list tools like listClients. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling listClientsPastConnections, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required clientMac parameter plus the phrase "for a specific client" signals this is the per-client drill-down, whereas listClients/listClientsPastConnections are broader. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer one over the other, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid MAC from listClients.

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