get_clients_trend

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains constraints (max 1 month range, no future dates), dependencies between group_by and client_type, and that the API returns 400 on mismatch. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, a usage note, and detailed parameter list. It's not overly concise but each part serves a purpose and is easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, return values are not needed. The description covers all input parameters, constraints, and error conditions (API 400). It is complete for agent decision-making.

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 0%, but the description fully explains all 6 parameters: filter semantics, time format, group_by options, client_type constraints, and default values. This significantly adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get client count trend over time, grouped by a chosen dimension' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_clients or get_top_clients_by_usage by focusing on trends over time.

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 mentions it's 'Useful for capacity planning and usage pattern analysis', giving context for when to use. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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