getGridKnownClients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and filterable by time range and search, but says nothing about default paging behavior, result caps, or response shape beyond the one-line return summary.

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 with the core identity and pagination front-loaded, and no filler. Slightly more room could have been used to route agents away from overlapping siblings instead of restating the filter set.

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 does state what the call returns (previously connected clients) and that results are paginated. All eight parameters are documented in the schema, so the main remaining gap is sibling disambiguation rather than missing mechanics.

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% across all eight parameters, including defaults for page and pageSize, ranges, and a siteId note pointing to listSites. The description only restates the time-range and search filters generically, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 historical known clients list') and adds scope ('clients that have previously connected to the site'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as listClients, listClientsPastConnections, or getGridClientHistory, which an agent would need to tell apart.

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 implied through 'historical' and 'previously connected', suggesting this is for past/known client retrieval rather than live clients. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no baseline alternative (e.g. listClients for current clients) is named despite several overlapping siblings.

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