listClientsPastConnections

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 the nature of the returned data (timestamps, traffic, duration, device details), but says nothing about rate limits, permissions, empty-result behavior, or whether history retention is bounded.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return contents and capabilities. Every sentence carries information; only the capability sentence partially duplicates the schema.

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?

For a read-only list tool with eight fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and available filtering/sorting, which is sufficient to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps (siteId defaulting, result ordering default) are the only omissions.

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%, so all eight parameters, their ranges, defaults, and the enum are already documented structurally. The description only restates those capabilities in aggregate (filtering, sorting, search) without adding format or interaction details, and it omits mention of siteId's default-site fallback.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get client past connection list') and immediately clarifies that these are historical connections, which separates it conceptually from live-client siblings like listClients or getClientDetail. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 lists the capabilities (pagination, time-range and guest filtering, sorting, fuzzy search), which implies when the tool is useful, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not route the agent to or away from any of the many sibling client tools.

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