get_messages_by_date

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, potential rate limits, or auth requirements. The date format guidance is helpful, but more behavioral context (e.g., pagination, error handling) would improve 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 clear sentence plus a brief parenthetical, conveying purpose and a key detail with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the primary purpose and date format. However, it omits expected response structure (e.g., array of message objects) and error conditions, leaving some gaps for a read tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a parenthetical with ISO 8601 examples, reinforcing the schema's 'ISO 8601' note but not adding substantial new meaning.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'messages from a Matrix room filtered by date range'. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_messages (likely unfiltered) and get_room_info, though sibling differentiation is implicit.

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 specifies the use case (date range filtering) and provides the date format, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like read_messages.

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