get_clients_trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose constraints like maximum date range (1 month), no future times, and the dependency between client_type and group_by. However, it omits information about rate limits, permissions, or error responses for invalid parameters.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then a one-line usage context, followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. However, the Args section uses a slightly informal style (colons and dashes) that could be more standardized.

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 tool with 6 parameters and an existing output schema, the description is thorough: it covers all parameters, validates constraints, and specifies the date range limit. It does not explain the output format, but that is acceptable given the output schema. Minor omissions (e.g., pagination, request size limits) prevent a perfect score.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains all 6 parameters with defaults, format (RFC 3339), valid values for group_by and client_type, and the cross-parameter constraint (client_type must be WIRELESS for certain group_by values). This is comprehensive and adds significant value 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 the action ('Get client count trend over time') and the key aspect ('grouped by a chosen dimension'). It also specifies the purpose ('capacity planning and usage pattern analysis'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_clients (current clients) or get_client_mobility_trail (mobility trail). This is a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 provides context for when this tool is useful ('capacity planning and usage pattern analysis') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. With 15 sibling tools, more explicit guidance on avoiding alternatives (e.g., 'for current clients, use list_clients') would improve clarity.

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