get_sessions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that results include calculated profit/loss and warns about significant token consumption for broad date ranges. This adds useful behavioral context about return values and cost implications.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose, then immediately provides a critical usage warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 5 optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description adequately explains the purpose, mentions the return includes profit/loss (since no output schema exists), and adds the token warning. It omits potential details like response structure or pagination, but the essential context is covered.

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?

The input schema already covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description only generically mentions 'optional filters' and adds a date-range warning, without adding new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool fetches poker sessions with optional filters and notes it returns calculated profit/loss. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_stats by implying raw session data rather than aggregated statistics.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (fetching sessions) and includes a practical warning about broad date ranges consuming tokens, advising narrow ranges. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to the sibling tool get_stats, so no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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