v2_client_history

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the burden is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful operational caveat: it relies on the v1 log API and is "the only one that returns events on 6.2+", which flags a data-availability constraint an agent would otherwise not know. No auth or rate-limit detail, hence not a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return contents, then the diagnostic value, then the API constraint. No redundant restatement of the name or 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 tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (AP, channel, band, disconnect frequency), so an agent knows what to expect. It is light on the one ambiguous parameter (siteId) and gives no pagination or time-window bounds beyond the default.

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 only 33% (only `days` is described, with its default). The description partially compensates by tying the output to "a given client" (mac) and "over N days" (days), but says nothing about siteId or how mac should be formatted. With low coverage the description should do more, so baseline-plus is not earned.

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: the full association history of a given client over N days, enumerating the returned dimensions (AP, channel, band, disconnect count). This clearly separates it from generic siblings like v2_clients, but it does not explicitly name the closest alternative (e.g. v2_past_connections or v2_client_survival), so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

The description gives explicit diagnostic context – "how you tell a band-steering problem from a roaming problem from a device that simply drops" – which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives for cases where another history tool would be better, so it falls short of a 5.

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