snapshots_get_snapshot_push

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds a meaningful behavioral detail: the auth scope requirement (agency-level token vs location PIT), which is not covered by annotations. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or how filtering works, which would add further transparency.

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 a single sentence, extremely concise, which is good for front-loading the action. However, it lacks any structured breakdown of parameters or usage context, and the sentence is somewhat sparse given the tool's complexity. It is not verbose, but it could benefit from a more structured format without losing brevity.

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?

With 6 required parameters, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. It covers the date range and auth requirement but leaves out parameter meanings, any examples, pagination details, or response expectations. For a tool with this complexity, the description is inadequate for an agent to call it correctly without external knowledge.

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 only 17% (only lastDoc has a description). The description infers that 'from' and 'to' are date boundaries, but it does not explain snapshotId, companyId, limit, or lastDoc beyond the schema. It does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving most parameters underspecified.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Snapshot Push') with an explicit scope ('between Dates'). It clearly differentiates from sibling snapshots_get_latest_snapshot_push, which retrieves only the latest, and the name aligns with the action. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 a prerequisite (agency-level token, not a location PIT) which is useful context, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over its siblings (e.g., 'use this when you need a date range rather than just the latest'). The guidance is implied by the name and description but not made explicit.

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